ArticleBMC psychology2026
No evidence for the utility of negative cues in a visual search-based concealed information test.
Article in BMC psychology, 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
Abstract
backgroundThe Concealed Information Test (CIT) is a widely used method for detecting whether individuals possess knowledge that they are trying to hide. This is typically assessed via physiological or behavioral indicators, such as reaction time. The present study examined whether inefficient visual search behaviorspecifically, slowing when participants are cued to ignore distractor features — can serve as a behavioral marker of concealed information, reflecting attentional capture and suppression processes. This approach was motivated by previous findings showing that cues associated with task-irrelevant items can impair visual search performance.
methodsExperiment 1 employed a visual search paradigm with distractor cues, based on previous negative cueing studies, to replicate their findings using object-based visual stimuli. Experiments 2 and 3 implemented a visual search–based concealed information test (CIT), in which the memorized and concealed item appeared as a distractor cue in the search display. Reaction times were recorded as the dependent measure.
resultsExperiment 1 confirmed that the use of distractor cues resulted in longer search times, suggesting inefficient visual processing. However, Experiments 2 and 3 revealed no significant differences in search performance between trials with and without concealed cues.
conclusionsAlthough visual search under distractor cueing was inefficient, it did not reliably reflect the presence of concealed information. The results suggest that attention to concealed items may be strategically suppressed or redirected, which undermines their detectability in reaction time-based visual searches. These findings emphasize the importance of incorporating alternative markers, such as eye movements or physiological signals, to enhance CIT sensitivity in future research.
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.