ArticleScientific reports2025
The development of visual attention to the Ebbinghaus illusion across two cultures.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Contextual Transparency Supports Cognitive Control by Reducing Prefrontal Activation and Enhancing Cue Prioritization in Children.Developmental science · 2026Article
- Brain-Inspired Multisensory Learning: A Systematic Review of Neuroplasticity and Cognitive Outcomes in Adult Multicultural and Second Language Acquisition.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
Abstract
Selective attention typically becomes more refined with age, improving significantly from early to middle childhood. However, under certain conditions, such as the Ebbinghaus illusion task, younger children may display more focused selective attention than older children and adults. Cross-cultural differences have also been documented, with North American participants tending to focus selectively on central targets, while East Asian participants attending holistically and showing greater susceptibility to the illusion. Despite these findings, the physiological mechanisms underlying these age-related and cultural differences remain unclear. Specifically, does susceptibility to the illusion align with what we attend to? The present study investigated age-related and culture-related changes in susceptibility to the Ebbinghaus illusion among 3- to 8-year-old children in Japan and the U.S. using eye-tracking methods. The results revealed that older children and Japanese children were more susceptible to the Ebbinghaus illusion than younger children. Importantly, behavioral susceptibility was linked to gaze fixation patterns. In both cultures, the proportion of total fixation time on the correct target area, including target and distractor circles, rather than selective attention to targets alone, predicted susceptibility to the Ebbinghaus illusion. These findings highlight the role of gaze fixation in shaping perceptual experiences across developmental and cultural contexts.
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.