ArticleFrontiers in psychology2024
Effect of cue validity on the contextual cueing effect.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: In daily life, people are adept at extracting task-relevant information from complex visual environment to guide attention more effectively toward the target. This process underpins the contextual cueing effect, where repeated exposure allows individuals to learn associations between contextual cues and targets, thereby enhancing visual search efficiency. However, the cue validity of context -how consistently cues predict target locations-is not always guaranteed in real life. This study focused on cue validity as a critical factor in understanding the contextual cueing effect. Within the study of contextual cueing, cue validity specifically refers to the probability that contextual cues accurately indicate the location of a target. Methods: In Experiment 1, we manipulated three levels of cue validity (100, 75, and 50%) using a classic contextual cueing paradigm. Experiment 2 examined the potential impact of an imbalanced predictable Results: Results from Experiment 1 revealed that higher cue validity (100 and 75%) significantly elicited the contextual cueing effect, resulting in faster responses for repeated displays, whereas lower cue validity (50%) did not result in this effect because the repeated displays could not be effectively learned. Experiment 2 showed that the contextual cueing effect remained robust despite an imbalanced ratio of predictable to unpredictable displays. Experiment 3 further showed that low cue validity affects the early learning phase of context-target associations rather than the later expression in visual search. Conclusion: Our study highlights the significant role of cue validity in implicit learning from visual cues. High cue validity enhances learning by providing highly stable context-target associations, while low cue validity does not actively facilitate attention allocation, thereby not promoting the learning process. These findings underscore the importance of cue validity in processing visual information.
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.