ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2026
Within-trial and across-trial distractor rejection mechanisms.
Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Color singleton distractors' interference is known to be modulated by rejection mechanisms based on the distractors' probability of occurrence at different locations. Here, to further address color-singleton distractor rejection, we used a modified version of the additional-singleton paradigm, where four consecutive displays were presented in rapid succession on each trial. In Experiment 1 the irrelevant singleton was either presented in the last display (single location, 40% probability) or repeated in all four displays (repeated location, 10% probability), with the two conditions appearing at separate locations. Contrary to common observations, we found that capture was much more attenuated at the repeated location, despite the lower distractor probability. Furthermore, we found no signs of target-processing impairment at the repeated location where capture was basically eliminated, whereas capture was present at the single location. In Experiment 2, where both locations had repeated distractors, we found target-processing impairment only at the location with the highest distractor probability (40%). Experiment 3 indicated that suppression, regardless of any within-trial distractor repetitions, becomes evident only when the distractor probability is high enough (35%). Experiment 4 replicated the main findings in a single experiment, within the same group of participants. The results suggest the possible existence of distinct rejection mechanisms based on within-trial and across-trials distractor repetitions. While suppression is probably involved in the across-trials rejection mechanism, we propose that the one operating on a shorter within-trial time scale is likely controlled solely by a distractor-expectation or distractor-prediction error mechanism.
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.