ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2025
Learned distractor rejection: Robust but surprisingly rapid.
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 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.
- 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The ability to reduce the distraction associated with repetitive irrelevant stimuli is critical to goal-directed navigation of the visual environment. Research has supported the existence of such an ability, which has often been referred to as learned distractor rejection (Vatterott & Vecera Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 871-878, 2012). However, despite being theoretically relevant to many prominent accounts of distractor ignoring, few studies have directly tested learned distractor rejection since its conception. In the current study we present three direct replications of Vatterott and Vecera's method that were separately conducted by two independent groups of researchers. Using the conventional split-block analysis, all three replications produce nearly identical results that fail to replicate the original study's finding. However, using analyses on a finer-grained timescale we found compelling evidence for the existence of a learned ignoring of salient distractors. Critically, this learning occurred much more rapidly than has been previously assumed, taking only two or three encounters with the distracting item before efficient rejection emerged.
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.