ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2025
Cueing distractors is effective when the incentive to suppress is high.
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.
- Response Preparation and the Simon Effect: Experimental and Model-Based Analyses.Journal of cognition · 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Avoiding distraction is critical for our ability to focus, and recent years have seen an increased interest in attentional suppression mechanisms. We now know that we implicitly learn about statistical regularities of our environment, which facilitates inhibition, but it remains unclear if distractors can also be suppressed voluntarily when advance information about their occurrence becomes available. Reasoning that such top-down suppression is likely an effortful process requiring a certain degree of motivation, we aimed to show that distractor cueing can effectively reduce distraction when the incentive is high. In an additional singleton search task, we maximized the incentive to suppress by presenting cues that validly indicated the distractor's specific location and colour, and by rewarding successful suppression. For correct responses, participants received either a low or high reward, depending on distractor colour. Responses were faster in trials with predictive cues than in trials with cues that did not provide any information. These cueing benefits increased over the course of the experiment. Reward magnitude also affected reaction times, indicating that high-reward singletons were more distracting, but did not interact with cueing condition. This performance pattern was complemented by modulations of the P
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.