ArticleComputational brain & behavior2024
Distracted by Previous Experience: Integrating Selection History, Current Task Demands and Saliency in an Algorithmic Model.
Article in Computational brain & behavior, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Learning alters salience and proactive attentional priority.Communications psychology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Attention can be biased by previous learning and experience. We present an algorithmic-level model of this selection history bias in visual attention that predicts quantitatively how stimulus-driven processes, goal-driven control and selection history compete to control attention. In the model, the output of saliency maps as stimulus-driven guidance interacts with a history map that encodes learning effects and a goal-driven task control to prioritize visual features. The model works on coded features rather than image pixels which is common in many traditional saliency models. We test the model on a reaction time (RT) data from a psychophysical experiment. The model accurately predicts parameters of reaction time distributions from an integrated priority map that is comprised of an optimal, weighted combination of separate maps. Analysis of the weights confirms selection history effects on attention guidance. The model is able to capture individual differences between participants' RTs and response probabilities per group. Moreover, we demonstrate that a model with a reduced set of maps performs worse, indicating that integrating history, saliency and task information are required for a quantitative description of human attention. Besides, we show that adding intertrial effect to the model (as another lingering bias) improves the model's predictive performance.
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.