ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2026
The influence of active suppression on stimulus-response binding and retrieval.
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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Feature integration across perception and action is a crucial aspect of cognitive processing, creating retrievable episodic representations known as stimulus-response episodes or event files. While some studies suggest that attention is unnecessary for stimulus-response binding and retrieval, others argue its importance in these processes. To reconcile this contradiction, the current study proposed an attentional threshold for feature integration in event files and tentatively tested this assumption. Since active suppression has been documented to down-regulate attention allocation toward certain stimuli, the current study set out to test the influence of active suppression on stimulus-response binding and retrieval. More specifically, we employed a modified distractor-response binding (DRB) paradigm with a search-and-identification task. Participants searched for targets defined by either a positive feature (Experiment 1, e.g., red when the target is a red letter) or a negative feature (Experiment 2, e.g., blue when the target is a non-blue letter). Distractors were unattended in Experiment 1 but were actively suppressed in Experiment 2, when they carried negative features. Significant DRB effects were observed in Experiment 1 but not in Experiment 2, suggesting that active suppression may reduce attention allocation toward distractors below a critical threshold for feature integration in event files. The current findings support the notion of an attentional threshold which determines what can be involved in the stimulus-response binding and retrieval processes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42098343What 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.