Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42378103›Full record

ArticlePerspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science2026

Imagine No Resources: Attention Is Selection and Normalization for Choice.

Gordon D Logan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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

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.

Gordon D LoganDepartment of Psychology, Vanderbilt University.ORCID 0000-0002-8301-7726

Funding

Stochastic Models of Visual SearchR01EY021833 · NEI · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI LOGAN, GORDON DENNIS, PALMERI, THOMAS · 2011 to 2023
$3.3M
NEI NIH HHS R01 EY021833
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

For many years, research on attention has been dominated by theories based on the assumption that attention is limited in capacity. These include the limited-capacity-channel theories of Welford and Broadbent and capacity or resource theories by Moray, Posner, and Kahneman. This article challenges these theories and their many descendants by asking why capacity is limited and what role capacity plays in the computations required to perform attention tasks. There are few satisfactory answers in limited-capacity and resource theories of attention. I show that the effects of load on performance, which are commonly interpreted as evidence for limited capacity, can be produced by models that assume unlimited, limited, and fixed capacity. I argue that attention is better construed as a selection of information that we need to achieve our goals. Following current research on computational models of attention in associative learning, categorization, perceptual learning, cognitive development, neuroscience, and artificial intelligence, I propose that attention is a process of choice in which selection is implemented as multiplicative gain control and processing is constrained by normalization. This perspective focuses on interactions between representations and decision processes applied to them, explaining many attentional phenomena without assuming attention is a limited resource.

Indexed as

attentioncapacitychoicenormalizationresourcesselection

Identifiers

PMID42378103
PMCPMC13322212

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.