ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2025
Lateralized costs of divided attention to faces.
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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We used a dual-task paradigm to study the relationship between lateralized face perception and attention by measuring the costs of dividing attention between faces viewed in opposite visual fields. Observers performed judgments of either the sex, orientation, or color of one (single-task, cued) or both (dual-task, uncued) faces in a tachistoscopically viewed pair. We observed dual-task costs (i.e., decreased accuracy for dual- relative to single-task performance) for categorical judgments of face sex (female/male) and orientation (upright/inverted), both of which necessitated visual processing of face-specific information. We did not observe costs for judgments of face color (red-tinted/greyscale), which could be performed without processing face-specific visual information per se. We also observed an unexpected "feature contrast" effect of category-incongruency for judgments of face sex, such that observers showed no dual-task cost when faces in a pair belonged to opposite categories (e.g., female/male) as compared with the same category (e.g., female/female). Finally, dual-task costs for judgments of face sex and orientation (but not color) showed a left visual field (LVF) advantage: dual-task costs were greater in the right visual field (RVF) than in the LVF. We interpret this LVF cost advantage for judgments of face sex and orientation as indicative of the type of visual processing needed to perform face-based judgments. Our results show, for the first time, that the LVF advantage in face perception is directly related to capacity limits induced by divided attention to faces.
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.