ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2025
Unpredictable singleton distractors in visual search can be subject to second-order suppression.
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 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Distinct underlying mechanisms contribute to learning-dependent distractor rejection.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Article
- Attentional tuning to color in efficient visual search: Evidence for optimal peak shifts and relational asymmetry.Journal of vision · 2026Article
- Signal suppression makes search less effortful.Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience · 2026Article
- Avoidance of capture by motion onset.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2026Article
- Signal suppression 2.0: An updated account of attentional capture and suppression.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2025Review
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
Recent evidence suggests that attentional capture by salient-but-irrelevant distractions can be avoided via suppression, thereby improving performance in visual search. Initial evidence suggested it is only possible to suppress salient distractors with constant and predictable features (first-order suppression). We show that previous failures to find evidence for second-order suppression of unpredictable feature singletons may have been due to low feature variability: If it is probable that the salient distractor colour is the target colour on another trial, suppressing this item might hinder performance. We first validated a new multiframe letter-probe paradigm, where observers counted the search displays with a target shape and always reported as many letter probes as possible from the final display. When target and singleton colours were constant (Experiment 1), a singleton suppression effect was observed, with probe letters at the singleton distractor location reported less frequently than those at non-singleton distractor locations. When two randomly swapped target/singleton colours were employed (Experiment 2), no suppression effect was observed, replicating previous findings. Critically, when target-colour items and the singleton could have one of eight different random colours (Experiment 3), a robust suppression effect reappeared. These observations demonstrate that first-order suppression is not universal, and that second-order suppression can be applied to singleton distractors under some circumstances. Suppression effects were observed for displays with and without targets, suggesting that they are not a product of direct target-singleton competition.
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.