ArticleImaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)2024
When spatial attention cannot be divided: Quadrantic enhancement of early visual processing across task-Relevant and irrelevant locations.
Article in Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Learning Modulates Early Encephalographic Responses to Distracting Stimuli: A Combined SSVEP and ERP Study.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2025Article
- Cortical network modulations associated with prolonged training of the multiple object-tracking task.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Spatial attention enables us to select regions of space and prioritize visual processing at the attended locations. Previous research has shown that spatial attention can be flexibly tuned to broader or narrower regions in space, and in some cases be split among multiple locations. Here, we investigate how attentional resources are distributed within a visual quadrant when participants are instructed to either focus attention narrowly, broadly, or split attention among two noncontiguous locations. Using a combination of behavior and steady-state visual-evoked potentials (SSVEP), the oscillatory response of the visual cortex to incoming flickering stimuli, we find clear evidence for ineffective splitting of spatial attention within a visual quadrant. Importantly, by assessing visual-cortical processing across locations at a high spatial resolution (by flickering nearby locations at distinct frequencies), our results reveal that attention was distributed in the exact same manner regardless of whether participants were instructed to attend broadly across a large region of space, or divide attention among two noncontiguous locations: In both cases, the intermediate location showed the strongest boost in visual-cortical processing, no matter whether it was the center of the attended region (broad-focus condition), or the uncued, to-be-ignored location (split-focus condition). Thus, the present study provides strong evidence that when trying to attend to multiple separate locations within a visual quadrant, sustained attention inadvertently enhances visual processing at the intermediate location even when it is detrimental to task performance.
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.