ArticleeLife2025
Rhythmic sampling and competition of target and distractor in a motion detection task.
Article in eLife, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Molecular Regulation of Pyroptosis in Alzheimer's Disease: Linking Neuroinflammation, Cell Death, and Therapeutic Targeting.Molecular neurobiology · 2026Review
- Rhythmic alternate prioritization in auditory feature-based attention.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Rhythmic sampling and competition of target and distractor representations in visual sensory memory.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2026Article
- Assessing the impact of artifact correction and artifact rejection on the performance of SVM- and LDA-based decoding of EEG signals.NeuroImage · 2025Article
- Assessing the impact of artifact correction and artifact rejection on the performance of SVM-based decoding of EEG signals.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
It has been suggested that the visual system samples attended information rhythmically. Does rhythmic sampling also apply to distracting information? How do attended information and distracting information compete temporally for neural representations? We recorded electroencephalography (EEG) from participants who detected instances of coherent motion in a random-dot kinematogram (RDK; the target), overlayed on different categories (pleasant, neutral, and unpleasant) of affective images from the International Affective Picture System (IAPS) (the distractor). The moving dots were flickered at 4.29 Hz, whereas the IAPS pictures were flickered at 6 Hz. The time course of EEG spectral power at 4.29 Hz was taken to index the temporal dynamics of target processing. The spatial pattern of the EEG spectral power at 6 Hz was similarly extracted and subjected to a moving-window MVPA decoding analysis to index the temporal dynamics of processing pleasant, neutral, or unpleasant distractor pictures. We found that (1) both target processing and distractor processing exhibited rhythmicity at ~1 Hz and (2) the phase difference between the two rhythmic time courses was related to task performance, i.e., relative phase closer to π predicted a higher rate of coherent motion detection whereas relative phase closer to 0 predicted a lower rate of coherent motion detection. These results suggest that (1) in a target-distractor scenario, both attended and distracting information were sampled rhythmically and (2) the more target sampling and distractor sampling were separated in time within a sampling cycle, the less distraction effects were observed, both at the neural and the behavioral level.
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.