ArticleFrontiers in psychology2025
Category-like representation of statistical regularities allows for stable distractor suppression.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Statistical learning allows observers to suppress attentional capture by salient singleton distractors appearing at a predictable location. This form of learning is in many cases inflexible, persisting into extinction and across changes in probability without strong contextual cues. However, the underlying learning mechanisms and nature of distractor probability representations remain unclear. Here, we replicated learned location-based distractor suppression in two experiments, both showing a reduction in attentional capture when a salient distractor appeared at a high-probability distractor location, alongside impairments in target selection at that same location. We then used computational modeling to explore whether the strength of suppression was best explained by continuous distractor frequency summation, reinforcement learning prediction errors, or a categorical all-or-nothing response. In both experiments, our data were most parsimoniously explained by a combination of a global exponential decay in response time with each distractor presentation paired with a categorical learning mechanism in which the most highly associated location was suppressed over all other locations. Our results suggest that the magnitude of suppression is more sensitive to overall probability differences than to subtle trial histories.
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.