Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42627199›Full record

ArticleJournal of vision2026

Attentional tuning to color in efficient visual search: Evidence for optimal peak shifts and relational asymmetry.

Dirk Kerzel, Martin Constant

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of vision, 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

2 authors.

Dirk KerzelDepartment of Psychology, Université de Genève, Geneva, Switzerland.
Martin ConstantDepartment of Psychology, Université de Genève, Geneva, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study investigated attentional templates and color tuning during efficient visual search. To evaluate optimal tuning and relational accounts, we used a paradigm where participants searched for a color singleton target while ignoring a cross-dimensional shape distractor. Crucially, the distractor's color varied along a precise continuum within the same dimension, spanning values toward and away from the nontarget background. We modeled response times (RTs) and oculomotor capture by fitting asymmetric Gaussian functions to the response curves. Supporting optimal tuning, oculomotor capture (Experiment 1) and manual responses under fixed fixation (Experiment 2) revealed peak interference systematically shifted away from the nontarget color to maximize target-nontarget contrast. Intriguingly, this peak shift was significantly more pronounced in early oculomotor capture than manual RTs, suggesting that optimal tuning biases peripheral attentional guidance (guiding template) more strongly than foveated target verification (target template). Furthermore, response functions exhibited profound asymmetry, displaying shallower slopes for colors extending along the target-defining vector. Whereas Experiment 3 confirmed highly efficient search slopes, Experiment 4 demonstrated that a feature-dissimilar distractor produced negligible capture, validating that selection was governed by a feature-based template. Together, these findings indicate that although attentional templates center on a specifically tuned, contrast-maximizing peak, their overall distribution remains bound to a relative, directional feature rule, consistent with the relational account. Data and scripts are available at https://doi.org/q9f4.

Indexed as

AttentionColor PerceptionEye MovementsAdultFemaleFixation, OcularHumansMalePhotic StimulationReaction TimeYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID42627199
PMCPMC13505795

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.