ArticlePsychological research2026
Selection with support: How cross-modal attention shapes smooth pursuit eye movements.
Article in Psychological research, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Smooth pursuit eye movements can offer a window into the interaction between sensorimotor control and cognition. The present study examined how pursuit might be affected by dual-task demands varying in sensory modality and cross-modal conflict. A second, exploratory aim was to assess whether individual differences in working memory (WM) capacity could moderate these effects. Participants were asked to track a moving target whilst performing mental calculations on visual, auditory, or bimodal digit streams. Pursuit was stabilised when attention was directed to visual input but substantially destabilised when directed to auditory input, revealing a bidirectional modality asymmetry. When attention was focused on an auditory stream in the presence of incongruent visual digits, cognitive error increased whilst pursuit variability did not, suggesting that additional conflict may tax cognitive rather than oculomotor processes. Higher WM capacity appeared to provide a modest, selective buffer, reducing pursuit variability specifically under demanding auditory conditions. We interpret these findings through a Selection-with-Support (SWS) principle: dual-task costs depend upon the representational alignment between attentional selection and the motor circuits supporting pursuit. Visual attention appears to directly support pursuit by engaging shared sensorimotor circuits, whilst auditory attention, lacking such premotor grounding, may rely upon executive control that WM can only partially sustain. The present study therefore offers a plausible mechanistic account of how attention might be motorically grounded.
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.