ArticlePsychophysiology2026
Partially Different Mechanisms of Social and Nonsocial Attention: Evidence From Changes in Cueing Effects and Underlying Frontal Cortex Processing Over Time.
Article in Psychophysiology, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Gaze conveys important information about one's intentions and likely object of reference. Because processes of attention may change over time, for reasons including fatigue or experience, this study aimed to compare mechanisms of gaze and arrow cueing effects by measuring across sessions. On two separate occasions, 39 young adults underwent a cueing paradigm with valid or invalid gaze or arrow cues, as well as neutral cues. Activation in frontal cortex regions implicated in the dorsal and ventral attention networks was examined during task performance using functional near-infrared spectroscopy. Behavioral results showed comparable orienting (valid vs. neutral) and reorienting (invalid vs. valid) responses following gaze and arrow cues, which did not significantly change over sessions. However, the gaze cue elicited a significantly greater alerting effect (i.e., more benefits from the presence of the cue on reaction time) than the arrow cue in Session 2. Parallel to these behavioral findings, neuroimaging results indicated robust (de-)activation during orienting and reorienting. Aligning with the greater alerting effect, target detection elicited significantly greater activation in the left posterior dorsomedial frontal cortex following gaze cues as opposed to arrow cues in Session 2. Therefore, insofar as changes over time are concerned, our findings offer converging evidence that gaze and arrow cues follow partially different attentional and neural mechanisms.
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.