Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40968342›Full record

ArticleCognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience2026

Signal suppression makes search less effortful.

Brad T Stilwell, Brian A Anderson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Brad T StilwellTexas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA. brad.t.stilwell@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-3906-8542
Brian A AndersonTexas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6620-3703

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Physically salient stimuli compete for attention but can be suppressed under certain conditions. Highly salient distractors can be suppressed more efficiently than less salient ones. However, the implications for the suppression of salient-but-irrelevant signals on the subjective effort of searching are unclear. On one hand, the neural processes involved in signal suppression may themselves be effortful to engage. On the other hand, the facilitation of search that results from reduced competition from the distractor in the visual system may render the act of searching less mentally effortful. Using a recently developed technique of relating physical effort to the putative mental effort required by different search conditions, we assessed whether observers were more motivated to exert physical effort to avoid the demands of ignoring high- or low-salience distractors. We replicated greater suppression for high- than low-salience distractors and showed that participants exerted more physical effort in exchange for search displays containing the high-salience distractors. However, in a situation where high- and low-salience distractors captured attention equally, participants no longer exhibited this preference. Our results suggest that observers prefer the conditions in which they search most efficiently, even when those conditions involve stronger recruitment of suppressive mechanisms of distractor processing.

Indexed as

AttentionPattern Recognition, VisualVisual PerceptionAdultFemaleHumansMalePhotic StimulationReaction TimeYoung AdultAttentional captureEffortSalienceSuppressionVisual attention

Identifiers

PMID40968342
PMCPMC13095966

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.