ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2025
Priming of pop-out in the spatial-cueing paradigm.
Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Past and present goals are represented concurrently during visual search.PLoS biology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Searching for a unique target is faster when its unique feature repeats than when it changes. The standard account for this priming-of-popout (PoP) phenomenon is that selecting a target increases the attentional priority of its features in subsequent searches. However, empirical tests of this priority account have yielded contradictory findings. Here, we attempted to clarify why support of its predictions has been elusive in spatial-cueing studies. We noted that the repetition manipulation is stronger in PoP studies than in spatial-cueing studies: The target and nontarget features either repeat or swap in the former, whereas in the latter, the target color either repeats or changes while the nontarget color remains constant. Here, we implemented the stronger repetition manipulation in the spatial-cueing paradigm. If PoP affects attentional priority, the cue-validity effect should be larger when the current-cue color and previous-target color match than when they mismatch. The results of Experiment 1 revealed the opposite effect. Moreover, they showed that well-replicated contingent-capture effects do not hold when target and nontarget colors are allowed to swap-an observation that was confirmed in Experiment 2. In Experiment 3, we verified that with our experimental set-up, a subtle manipulation of attentional priority could modulate cue-validity effects. While the present study does not resolve why evidence for the priority account is inconsistent with the spatial-cueing paradigm, they eliminate one possible reason for such inconsistency. They also reveal that allowing the target and distractors color to swap masks contingent-capture effects, thereby highlighting the complexity of spatial-cueing effects.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.