ArticlePloS one2025
Urgency enforces stimulus-driven action across spatial and numerical cognitive control tasks.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multisensory integration of stimulus-driven and goal-driven signals during urgent saccadic choices.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Contributions of Distinct Attention Mechanisms to Saccadic Choices in a Gamified, Dynamic Environment.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2026Article
- Contributions of distinct attention mechanisms to saccadic choices in a gamified, dynamic environment.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- The forced-response method: Urgency rediscovered.Behavior research methods · 2025Article
- Urgency overpowers cognitive control by amplifying cognitive processing asymmetries.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2025Article
- Understanding vigilance and its decrement: theoretical, contextual, and neural insights.Frontiers in cognition · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
It has been shown that urgency in cognitive control tasks elicits a time-window in which responses are dominated by stimuli rather than goals. If stimulus information conflicts with goal-relevant information, urgency impairs goal-directed responses. This was shown for an antisaccade task as well as tasks using manual responses. Critically, however, all previous studies on manual responses used arrows as stimuli, leaving it unclear whether urgency affects cognitive control also in tasks using different stimuli. Here, we show that the urgency effect can also be elicited in three cognitive control tasks that do not use arrow stimuli. Participants completed either a Spatial Stroop task with word stimuli, in which they reacted to the word meaning while ignoring the spatial position, or a Numerical Stroop Task, in which they had to respond to the numerically larger of two presented numbers. The physical size of the numbers varied but was irrelevant to the task. The third task was a Simon task, where participants were instructed to react to the color of a stimulus while ignoring its spatial position. In all tasks, urgency evoked a time window, in which the position or the physical size dominated the response, which was evident from a drop of performance below chance level in conflict situations. These results reveal that the effect of urgency on cognitive control does not depend on arrow stimuli and emerges in a number of other spatially related tasks, specifically in spatial and numerical cognitive control tasks. As such, they suggest that urgency affects cognitive control more generally.
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.