Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39962116›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

A preliminary investigation of the interaction between expectation and the reflexive allocation of covert spatial attention.

Nicholas Crotty, Nicole Massa, Dagoberto Tellez, Alex L White, Michael A Grubb

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

5 authors.

Nicholas CrottyTrinity College, Hartford, CT, USA.
Nicole MassaTrinity College, Hartford, CT, USA.
Dagoberto TellezTrinity College, Hartford, CT, USA.
Alex L WhiteBarnard College, New York, NY, USA.
Michael A GrubbTrinity College, Hartford, CT, USA. michael.grubb@trincoll.edu.

Funding

Capacity limits in the neural circuitry of visual word recognitionR00EY029366 · NEI · BARNARD COLLEGE · PI WHITE, ALEXANDER LINDLEY · 2021 to 2023
$746k
National Science Foundation (NSF) 2141860NEI NIH HHS R00 EY029366
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Sudden onsets in the visual periphery elicit reflexive shifts of covert exogenous spatial attention. Here, we asked: are the behavioral effects of such an irrelevant exogenous cue modulated by implicit knowledge about the probability of the cue's presence? Participants discriminated the orientation of a visual target that was preceded, on some trials, by an abrupt-onset task-irrelevant disk (exogenous cue). A color at fixation (red or green) signaled the probability that a cue would appear (0.8, "high-probability", or 0.2, "low-probability"). When presented, this cue flashed briefly in the periphery, either near the target (valid cue) or non-target stimulus (invalid cue, equally likely). We used a speed-accuracy tradeoff (SAT) procedure to vary the time given for participants to process the stimuli before responding. We found that low-probability cues generated significantly larger cueing effects (discrimination accuracy, valid-invalid) than high-probability cues, but only when responses were made early in the accumulation of visual information (i.e., under strict time pressure). Both the directionality and temporal dynamics of these results were replicated across a series of online studies. Thus, expectations about an exogenous cue's presence or absence have a significant yet transient impact on its ability to direct the reflexive allocation of covert exogenous spatial attention.

Indexed as

AttentionSpace PerceptionVisual PerceptionAdultCuesFemaleHumansMalePhotic StimulationReaction TimeYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID39962116
PMCPMC11833114

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.