Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40229616›Full record

ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2025

Rejecting an irrelevant singleton in the absence of a competing target.

Luca Betteto, Matteo De Tommaso, Massimo Turatto

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Within-trial and across-trial distractor rejection mechanisms.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2026
    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

3 authors.

Luca BettetoCimec, Center for Mind/Brain Sciences, University of Trento, Corso Bettini, 31, 38068, Rovereto, Italy. luca.betteto@unitn.it.
Matteo De TommasoDepartment of Psychology, University of Milano Bicocca, Milan, Italy.
Massimo TurattoCimec, Center for Mind/Brain Sciences, University of Trento, Corso Bettini, 31, 38068, Rovereto, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Theories of visual distraction handling commonly propose that mechanisms of distractor rejection are engaged because irrelevant, salient objects tend to dominate the attentional competition with the target. Consequently, the resulting misallocation of attention is thought to trigger distractor suppression, ultimately reducing unwanted attentional capture. Using a modified version of the classic additional-singleton paradigm based on four consecutive displays in each trial, where the target and the distractor competed for attention only in the last one, we demonstrated that the attentional capture elicited by a color singleton was strongly attenuated when the singleton repeatedly appeared within the same trial, even in the absence of a competing target. Importantly, this capture attenuation was not associated with target impairment when the target appeared at the singleton location, suggesting that the within-trial rejection was likely controlled by an expectation-based mechanism rather than a suppressive one. Our findings point to the existence of distinct within-trial and across-trials rejection mechanisms, potentially operating on different timescales and involving suppressive and nonsuppressive processes.

Indexed as

AttentionColor PerceptionOrientationPattern Recognition, VisualAdultFemaleHumansMaleReaction TimeYoung AdultAttentional captureVisual search

Identifiers

PMID40229616
PMCPMC12058927

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.