Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41059092›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2025

Exogenous spatial attention is functional in paralytic strabismics.

Kevin T Willeford, Robert M McPeek

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2025. 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.

Kevin T WillefordDepartment of Optometric Sciences, NOVA Southeastern University College of Optometry, Fort Lauderdale, FL, United States.
Robert M McPeekDepartment of Biological and Vision Sciences, SUNY State College of Optometry, New York, NY, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: The absence of exogenous cueing effects in patients with paralytic strabismus has been cited as evidence for an obligate linkage between movement execution and attentional allocation. Methods: The present study challenges this interpretation through two experiments that measured the impact of visual cues, intended to facilitate or inhibit shifts of spatial attention, on the latencies of target-directed responses. By including a no-cue control condition, we assessed both the presence and direction of cue-induced attentional modulation. Results: Our results show that all patients' patterns of saccadic (Experiment I) and keypress (Experiment II) response latencies showed classic signatures of cue-target interactions: movements initiated in response to targets spatially proximate to cues were initiated fastest whereas movements initiated toward targets spatially distal from cues were initiated slowest. This trend held true when grouping latencies by cue-saccade offset to account for small errors in saccade landing position in Experiment I. Though the patients' data exhibited small degrees of idiosyncrasy, most patients' mean normalized latencies also fell within the range of latencies observed in non-strabismic participants. Discussion: These findings support the notion that premotor structures may program attentional shifts in an effector-independent manner and motivate future investigations to explore how, not if, exogenous spatial attention is deployed in paralytic strabismics.

Indexed as

covert attentionexogenous attentionovert attentionparalytic strabismuspremotor theory

Identifiers

PMID41059092
PMCPMC12497859

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.