Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42338773›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in cognition2026

Attentional capture effects are modulated by the number of concurrently maintained search goals.

Katherine Sledge Moore, Ariel M Kershner

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in cognition, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Katherine Sledge MooreDepartment of Psychology, Arcadia University, Glenside, PA, United States.
Ariel M KershnerDepartment of Psychology, Neumann University, Aston Township, PA, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: In hybrid visual-memory search, multiple search goals are concurrently maintained in memory and searched for in a visual display. When there are few goals, maintenance can operate in visual working memory, whereas when there are many concurrent search goals, they may be maintained in activated long-term memory. A central question here is how multiple search goals are concurrently maintained in memory and selectively enhanced during search. Two attentional capture effects illustrate goal enhancement in the presence of distraction: contingent capture, when distractors resemble the current trial's target, and set-specific capture, when distractors resemble one of your search goals, but not the current trial's target. Methods: In the present study, participants memorized sets of 2, 4, or 16 objects, and searched for them in a continuous rapid serial visual presentation stream. On critical trials, a goal-related distractor appeared 1-2 frames before the target, matching either the Results: Contingent capture was greatest with 16-item sets, whereas set-specific capture was greatest with 2-item sets, and 4-item sets were in between. Discussion: These findings indicate that search goal enhancement flexibly adapts to memory load, with implications for models of goal maintenance and attentional control. They also provide the first evidence of set-specific capture with complex objects as search goals.

Indexed as

attentional capturehybrid searchmemoryRSVPset-specific capturevisual search

Identifiers

PMID42338773
PMCPMC13271133

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.