ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2025
Rejecting an irrelevant singleton in the absence of a competing target.
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.
- Within-trial and across-trial distractor rejection mechanisms.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2026Article
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
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
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.