ArticlePsychophysiology2025
Neural Mechanisms of Object Prioritization in Vision.
Article in Psychophysiology, 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.
- Neural Mechanisms of Object Prioritization in Vision.Psychophysiology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Selective attention is widely thought to be sensitive to visual objects. This is commonly observed in cueing studies, which show that when attention is deployed to a known target location that happens to fall on a visual object, responses to targets that unexpectedly appear at other locations on that object are faster and more accurate, as if the object in its entirety has been visually prioritized. However, this notion has recently been challenged by results suggesting that putative object-based effects may reflect the influence of hemifield anisotropies in attentional deployment, or of unacknowledged influences of perceptual complexity and visual clutter. Studies employing measures of behavior provide limited opportunity to address these challenges. Here, we used EEG to directly measure the influence of task-irrelevant objects on the deployment of visual attention. We had participants complete a simple visual cueing task involving identification of a target that appeared at either a cued location or elsewhere. Throughout each experimental trial, displays contained task-irrelevant rectangle stimuli that could be oriented horizontally or vertically. We derived two cue-elicited indices of attentional deployment-lateralized alpha oscillations and the ADAN component of the event-related potential-and found that these were sensitive to the otherwise irrelevant orientation of the rectangles. Our results provide evidence that the allocation of visual attention is influenced by objects boundaries, supporting models of object-based attentional prioritization.
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.