ArticleScientific reports2025
The consequences of preparing for informative or distracting stimuli.
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.
- On the rigidity of the preparation effect.Frontiers in psychology · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
How do individuals prepare for impending distractors? It has been recently suggested that not only observers do not inhibit distractors before their appearance, but they are rather more alert at those moments. Interestingly, a similar effect emerged when observers prepared for task-relevant, informative stimuli, supporting a mandatory "attend-all" mechanism. However, the preparation effect was only demonstrated in speeded dot-probe tasks, and it is yet to be determined whether preparing for distractors merely facilitates motor preparation or extends to other outcomes, such as modifying early visual processes. In two experiments, we replaced the dot-probe task with a four-letter memory encoding task. Participants performed a change detection task that included Informative-display, Distractors-display, and No-display blocks. These displays appeared during the retention interval of the change-detection task. To probe attention, in 25% of the trials, four letters were displayed at the exact moment in which the Informative/Distractors display was expected, and participants were required to remember as many letters as possible. As expected, the performance in the change-detection task was best at the Informative- and worst at the Distractors-display condition. Importantly, participants recalled more letters when they appeared during the anticipation for both informative and distracting stimuli, and no meaningful difference was observed between these conditions. These findings suggest that the preparation effect extends beyond motor preparation, influencing visual processes at an early stage. They also support the notion that the preparation effect is not very flexible, yet further research is required to confirm this conclusion.
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.