ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2026
Evaluating the contributions of top-down and bottom-up processing on eye movements during parallel visual search.
Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In the current study, we used an efficient visual search paradigm in a pseudo-realistic environment, with well-controlled search stimuli that allow a simultaneous evaluation of the impact of top-down and bottom-up factors on eye-movement patterns. Our stimuli varied along the color dimension to manipulate target-distractor similarity and our displays contained a salient stimulus of higher salience than target and other less-salient distractor stimuli. We manipulated task instructions, introducing a free-view instruction condition to serve as a baseline for how bottom-up contrast guided eye movements in one group of participants, and a top-down search instruction in a second group, where subjects were asked to find the red target in the scene. Experiment 1 assessed the impact of set size of less-salient distractors across both instructions. Experiment 2 examined target-distractor similarity effects for the less-salient distractors. We compared the likelihood that the first fixation in a trial would be selective towards the target (top-down) versus the high-salience singleton (bottom-up) and studied how this selectivity varied as a function of initial saccade latency. Interestingly, the results from the free-view conditions showed selectivity for the high-salience item during the first fixation was sustained across saccade latencies, yet the high-salience items capture very few saccades in the search task, suggesting attention might be in limbo early in the trial. Indeed, the results also showed that it takes time for saccades to be correctly directed at the target in a search task.
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.