ArticleFrontiers in cognition2026
Attentional capture effects are modulated by the number of concurrently maintained search goals.
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.
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
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.