Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39925788›Full record

ArticleJournal of cognition2025

I am Once Again Asking for Your Attention: A Replication of Feature-Based Attention Modulations of Binding Effects with Picture Stimuli.

Tarini Singh, Lars-Michael Schöpper, Christian Frings

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cognition, 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

3 authors.

Tarini SinghUniversity of Trier, DE.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-4114-6856
Lars-Michael SchöpperUniversity of Trier, DE.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4302-3563
Christian FringsUniversity of Trier, DE.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3852-7380

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Action control theories assume that stimulus and response features are integrated or bound into short term episodic traces. A repetition of any of these features results in a retrieval of the entire episodic trace, and can thus facilitate or interfere with future actions. Along with stimuli features, features of the response and any other irrelevant stimuli that are present, are also integrated into such traces and can influence future actions. Using word stimuli, Singh et al. (2018) observed that such so-called binding effects are larger for attended features relative to unattended features. This was the case even for features generally believed to be automatically processed, like valence. Since previous research has shown differences in the processing of word and picture stimuli, it is questionable whether the attentional modulations in the above study would extend to picture stimuli. In order to examine this question, Experiment 1 replicated the design of Singh et al. (2018) but used picture instead of word stimuli. In order to directly compare word and picture stimuli, the data of Singh et al (2018) were re-analysed together with the data of the present study. In Experiment 2, the alternative hypothesis, that the effects were driven by the encoding of stimulus contingencies, was tested. Taken together, the findings of the present study replicate those of Singh et al. (2018), indicating that even with picture stimuli, valence related binding effects are modulated by attention allocation.

Indexed as

Action and perceptionAttentionEmotion and cognition

Identifiers

PMID39925788
PMCPMC11804182

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.