ArticleScientific reports2025
Age-invariant benefits of spatiotemporal predictions amidst distraction during dynamic visual search.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Visual search tasks are widely used to study attention amidst distraction, often revealing age-related differences. Research shows older adults typically exhibit poorer performance and greater sensitivity to distraction, reflecting declines in goal-driven attention. However, traditional search tasks are static and fail to capture the challenges and opportunities in natural environments, which include predictive structures within extended contexts. We designed a search variation where targets and distractors compete over time and embedded spatiotemporal regularities afford prediction-led guidance of attention. Critically, we manipulated the number of distractors to chart how benefits of expectations and deficits from distraction varied with age. Younger and older adults searched for multiple targets as they faded in and out of the display while varying the number of distracting elements between trials. Half the targets appeared at the same time and approximate locations and could be predicted. While we found evidence for decrement and elevated sensitivity to distraction with increasing age, benefits from predictions occurred in all groups. Interestingly, regardless of age, effects of predictions were only significant during periods of high distraction. This work extends our understanding of attention control through ageing to dynamic settings and indicates a dissociation between goal-directed and learning-driven attentional guidance.
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.