Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39715983›Full record

ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2025

Priming of pop-out in the spatial-cueing paradigm.

Dirk Kerzel, Dominique Lamy

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Dirk KerzelDepartment of Psychology, University of Geneva, 40 Boulevard du Pont d'Arve, CH-1205, Geneva, Switzerland. dirk.kerzel@unige.ch.
Dominique LamySchool of Psychological Sciences, Tel Aviv, University, Tel Aviv, Israel.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

AttentionColor PerceptionCuesPattern Recognition, VisualRepetition PrimingSpace PerceptionAdultFemaleHumansMaleReaction TimeYoung AdultAttentional priorityContingent capturePriming of pop-outVisual search

Identifiers

PMID39715983
PMCPMC12058872

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.