SynthesisPsychonomic bulletin & review2026
The puzzle of profitless pre-cues.
Synthesis in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- When forewarned is not forearmed: No evidence for cue-based proactive control in the spatial Stroop task.Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Despite the intuition that attention can be willfully heightened on demand in response to warnings that alert people to impending distraction (e.g., "Pay attention!"), the empirical evidence for this notion from studies employing congruency pre-cues is surprisingly weak, posing a challenge to some theoretical accounts. Here, we examine this puzzle of profitless pre-cues via the first systematic review of the literature on pre-cues in conflict tasks (e.g., the Stroop task)-a classic instance of proactive cognitive control. We first outline important conceptual and methodological considerations to delineate the process of greatest theoretical and practical importance, namely, the volitional attenuation of distraction when the precise target and distractor features are not known in advance. This is followed by a comprehensive literature review, revealing limited evidence for the effective use of pre-cues to attenuate distraction in conflict tasks (and we note a similar status in adjacent fields, like task switching and visual search). To elucidate this puzzle, we synthesize key findings alongside design parameters employed across studies to develop a novel theoretical framework, called TEPID. TEPID proposes a two-phase model that highlights the interactivity of a small set of task-related factors (preparation time, cue type, response modality, and task type) and person-related factors (motivation and ability) which we believe to be crucial for determining whether pre-cues are exploited to proactively modulate control. From this synthesis, several recommendations and predictions are derived to position the field for future investigations of proactive control using pre-cueing manipulations, as well as their translation to real-life applications.
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.