ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2025
The applicability of a cueing paradigm to study individual differences in the spotlight of attention.
Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Our spotlight of attention allows selecting and filtering relevant information from the world around us, and thereby influences how we perceive the world. However, it remains poorly understood whether there are, next to state influences, also stable differences in the sharpness of the spotlight between individuals: trait differences. Therefore, our aim was to investigate the validity of a cueing paradigm to assess group and individual differences. In an online experiment, we presented a cue to covertly direct attention to one side of the screen. This was followed by a target (gapped circle) appearing at varying distances from the cue, in either the valid or the invalid hemifield. The accuracy of reporting the gap direction was used to map the size of the attentional spotlight. First, results indicated that our task elicited the standard exogeneous cueing effects. Then, we fitted linear slopes to index the spatial gradient of the spotlight and demonstrated performance decline as a function of increasing target distance, showing that attention modulates the sharpness of the spotlight. Test-retest analyses revealed that while the patterns observed at the group level are robust, performance on the individual level was not reliably stable over a 2-week period, limiting the validity of the cueing paradigm for individual differences research. Whereas not suitable to detect variance in the homogeneous neurotypical population, we discuss potential use of the task for future research in clinical populations where altered attentional functioning are hallmarks in the clinical diagnosis (e.g., autism spectrum conditions), and in reassessing previously reported group level differences.
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.