ArticleExperimental brain research2025
ERP evidence of attentional selection outside of effective oculomotor range.
Article in Experimental brain research, 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The close link between visual attention and the oculomotor system is well documented. Within the selection-for-action framework, two perspectives exist. According to Visual Attention Model (VAM) attention is seen as a prerequisite for successful movement execution, though it is considered a distinct cognitive and neural process. By contrast, the premotor theory of attention (PMTA) argues that the beneficial effects of attention are fully accounted for by the system’s preparation for saccadic eye movements. From this standpoint, a central prediction emerges: attentional advantages should be confined to regions within the oculomotor range, since saccadic planning is not feasible outside those limits. A common way to examine this prediction is to present cues and targets in a hemifield beyond the oculomotor range, typically achieved by occluding one eye while abducting the other. Using this method, Smith et al. showed that in a visual search task, exogenous orienting is reduced in the temporal hemifield when the eye is abducted. They concluded that exogenous attentional orienting is constrained by the range of potential saccadic movements. In our study, we sought to replicate Smith et al.’s findings while extending the paradigm with EEG recordings—an approach not yet applied in this context. PMTA predicts that, under eye abduction, stimuli appearing in the temporal hemifield would yield diminished N2pc amplitudes. An ANOVA revealed no reduction of N2pc amplitude in the temporal hemifield. Taken together, our results support the growing body of evidence suggesting that visual attention is not strictly bound to the oculomotor range.
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.