ArticleScientific reports2025
Attention directs actions in visual foraging.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
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
Visual foraging tasks, where participants collect items by touching or clicking on them, have become popular for investigating visual search. They probe selective attention in multi-target contexts through naturalistic goal-directed actions, unlike the button presses used in many other paradigms. Despite their potential, such tasks had not been used to examine the interplay of attention and goal-directed actions until now, even though this topic has been extensively studied with other paradigms and has significant implications for understanding human visual behavior in the real world. In this study, we applied the visual foraging paradigm to address this gap. We found that attentional prioritization of one part in a two-part compound object is accompanied by a motor bias in the collecting action (stylus tap) toward the prioritized part. This bias combines with motor precision demands, such as aiming for stable contact points. Our findings show that action planning not only modulates the attentional landscape at large but also that attentional asymmetries (e.g., prioritizing one object part) feed back into the motor system, combining with motoric factors to refine goal-directed actions.
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.