Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42050109›Full record

ReviewAttention, perception & psychophysics2026

35+ years of the additional singleton task: Design features and guidelines.

Jan Theeuwes

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Jan TheeuwesCognitive Psychology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands. J.Theeuwes@vu.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5849-7721

Funding

ERC NWO Open competition grant 406.21.GO.034.ERC This work is supported by a European Research Coun
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The additional singleton paradigm, introduced in the early 1990s, has become a cornerstone in attention research and the study of attentional capture. In this task, observers search for a unique target singleton while an irrelevant, but salient distractor singleton is also present. Decades of research have demonstrated that such distractors reliably slow responses, supporting a stimulus-driven account of attentional selection. This paper reviews the origins of the paradigm, key findings, and ongoing debates, with particular focus on design features that shape results. Critical factors include the consistency of target-distractor assignments, distractor prevalence, display size, target-distractor similarity, and the use of compound versus simple search tasks. Guidelines are presented to maximize the paradigm's utility and to avoid misinterpretation of attentional capture effects. The review concludes that the additional singleton task continues to provide unique leverage in distinguishing stimulus-driven selection from top-down control.

Indexed as

AttentionPattern Recognition, VisualHumansAttentional captureBottom-up attentionTop-down attentionVisual search

Identifiers

PMID42050109
PMCPMC13124814

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.