ArticleScientific reports2025
Single scores in the RT-based value-driven attentional capture paradigm have high reliability.
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.
- A Mouse-Tracking Paradigm for Value-Driven Attentional Capture.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
Abstract
Value-driven attentional capture (VDAC) involves involuntary attention shifts towards neutral stimuli previously associated with rewards. This phenomenon is pertinent for various neuropsychiatric conditions. This study aims to evaluate the reliability of VDAC using reaction time (RT) and data-limited accuracy measures. Two experiments were conducted: one using the traditional RT-based VDAC paradigm and another using a data-limited accuracy-based approach. The reliability of these measures was assessed through odd-even split-half and test-retest correlations. The RT-based paradigm showed significant VDAC effects and high reliability when individual RT scores were used. However, the data-limited accuracy paradigm did not exhibit VDAC effects, possibly due to task simplicity. RT-based VDAC measures are reliable when using individual scores, while data-limited accuracy measures may require more challenging tasks to effectively capture VDAC. We suggest that researchers in the experimental approaches use single scores instead of difference scores to improve reliability, as they have lower measurement error and higher between-participant variance. Using single scores may require certain prerequisites for them to be meaningful - specifically, that a reliable VDAC effect is observed at the group level.
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.