ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2025
Task-irrelevant semantic grouping influences attentional allocation.
Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
High-level features of objects, such as meaning, bias attention even when task-irrelevant. We hypothesize that task-irrelevant semantic features bias attention via a grouping mechanism, organizing visual input by semantic relatedness in a manner similar to low-level grouping. Specifically, when presented with a task-irrelevant visual array of items, visual search is more efficient within a group of semantically related items. Participants were shown four stimuli of either color squares (low-level grouping), grayscale real-world objects (high-level grouping), or color real-world objects (low- and high-level grouping). On each trial two or three of the four items belonged to one category (e.g., clothing, blue squares). A target appeared randomly on one of the items, independent of relatedness (task-irrelevant). For all manipulations, search was equally efficient in groups of equal size. For unequal size groups, in color squares and grayscale objects, large groups yielded less efficient search - consistent with low-level perceptual grouping. In color objects, however, search was more efficient in a larger semantically related group - consistent with semantic bias. Results show that single features group displays, but complex stimuli bias attention beyond simple grouping.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41266838What 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.