ArticleCommunications psychology2026
Learning alters salience and proactive attentional priority.
Article in Communications psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Parallel or clump-wise serial? A reinterpretation of feature-search mode.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2026Article
- Effects of Statistical Learning on Stimulus Detection Speed Reflect Attention Rather Than Representational Changes.Cognitive science · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The ability to ignore salient yet irrelevant stimuli is essential to accomplishing even simple tasks. Previous research has shown that observers are better able to suppress distracting stimuli via experience; yet the precise mechanisms of this learned suppression is a subject of debate. The current study (n = 230) employed a psychophysical approach combined with computational modeling to examine how learned spatial suppression affects perception and performance. The results show that items presented at suppressed locations are perceived as less bright than those in non-suppressed areas, suggesting that learned suppression directly affects the perceived saliency of items. To determine how this saliency change affects visual search, a computational modeling approach was used to compare various models of attentional selection. This analysis favored a model in which learned suppression reduces the saliency of objects presented at suppressed locations in the initial salience calculation. Since the saliency of these items is reduced, they are less able to compete for attentional processing and capture attention less often.
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.