ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2026
Distractor preview moderates the alerting-congruency interaction in Stroop and flanker tasks.
Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2026. 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.
- Trial history shapes the alerting-congruency interaction in selective attention.Frontiers in 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Responses to targets are often slower when distractors are incongruent rather than congruent with the required response. Past research indicates that alerting cues can magnify this congruency effect, such that responses are faster when the target is cued, but distractors have a greater negative influence. This alerting-congruency interaction is reliably found in the arrow-version of Eriksen's flanker task but not in the Stroop task, leading some to suggest that the interaction only occurs with stimuli that have pre-existing directional associations. The current experiments test the possibility that the alerting-congruency interaction depends on the timing of distractor processing, rather than directional associations, by varying whether the distractor appears before the target or simultaneously with the target. In Experiment 1 (N = 158) using Stroop stimuli, and Experiment 2 (N = 157) using the arrow-version of the Eriksen flanker task, results replicate past findings: no alerting-congruency interaction in the Stroop task and a robust interaction in the arrow-flanker task when distractors and targets appear simultaneously. Importantly, previewing the distractor reverses both of these patterns. Delta plots showing congruency effects across the reaction-time distribution support the conclusion that the timing of distractor activation may be critical. Discussion focuses on implications for theories of the alerting-congruency interaction. OPEN PRACTICES STATEMENT: Subject-level data for all experiments are publicly available at https://osf.io/uxebp/?view_only=0db3638a66454684aee9fc41550a3a48 . The studies reported in this article were not preregistered.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42675338What 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.