ArticleJournal of cognition2025
I am Once Again Asking for Your Attention: A Replication of Feature-Based Attention Modulations of Binding Effects with Picture Stimuli.
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.
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.
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
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
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.