ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2025
Effort and salience jointly drive saccade selection.
Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Past and present goals are represented concurrently during visual search.PLoS biology · 2026Article
- Proximal procrastination of saccades: "paradoxical" delays to larger objects explained by a simple payoff-time heuristic.iScience · 2026Article
- Saccade direction modulates the temporal dynamics of presaccadic attention.Journal of vision · 2025Article
- Presaccadic Attention Shifts Up- and Downwards: Evidence From the Pupil Light Response.Psychophysiology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Choosing where to move the eyes ('saccade selection') is one of the most frequent human decisions and fundamentally shapes perception. Currently, saccade selection is thought to be predominantly driven by the observer's goals, selection history, and by the physical salience of stimuli. Recent work demonstrates that the inherent effort associated with planning and executing saccades ('saccade costs') also drives saccade selection: participants prefer making affordable over costly saccades. Do saccade costs still affect saccade selection when other factors such as salience attract gaze? Here, we addressed if, and how, saccade costs and salience together drive saccade selection by having participants freely choose between two potential saccade targets in different directions. Saccade targets either differed in salience or not, allowing us to disentangle the effects of saccade costs and salience. We observed that salience predicted saccade selection: participants chose salient over non-salient targets. Furthermore, saccade costs predicted saccade selection when equally salient targets were presented. When the possible targets differed in salience, the effect of saccade costs on saccade selection was reduced but not eliminated. Further analyses demonstrate that saccade costs and salience jointly drive saccade selection. Together, our results are in line with an accumulating body of work, and show that the role of effort in saccade selection is robust to salience. We conclude that effort must be considered a fundamental factor that drives where the eyes are moved.
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.