ArticleScientific reports2025
Perceived depth modulates allocation of attention.
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 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.
- Difference thresholds in 3D space depend on perceived size, not depth.Psychological research · 2025Article
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
There is growing evidence that the visual system processes objects perceived as closer more quickly and accurately than those farther away, a phenomenon known as the "close advantage effect" (CAE). The mechanisms underlying this effect, however, remain unknown. In this series of studies, we assessed whether perceived depth modulates allocation of attention. Using a Posner cueing task in Experiment 1a, we found greater accuracy for close surface targets (demonstrating the CAE). Critically, we also found a smaller Posner effect in the close surface, suggesting that attentional resources are better utilized in this space. Experiment 1b confirmed that these results were not due to differences in background surface sizes. In Experiment 2a, using the Egly-Driver task, we replicated and extended the results of Experiment 1a. Participants were more accurate when shifting attention from far to close surfaces and when shifting attention within the close surface, compared to when shifting attention within the far surface. These results suggest that perceived proximity makes attentional shifts more efficient. This effect persisted in Experiment 2b, even after controlling for the perceived size of the targets. Overall, our findings show that perceived depth modulates attention, with close space receiving preferential processing likely due to its relevance for immediate interaction.
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.