ArticlePsychological research2026
Retro-cue alerting effects on conscious perception across different levels of target visibility.
Article in Psychological research, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Can alerting retro-cues improve the conscious perception of stimuli that would otherwise remain unseen? While pre-stimulus alerting is known to facilitate conscious access, the effects of retro-cues remain ambiguous due to methodological confounds in existing literature. Specifically, most studies finding retro-cue benefits have relied on spatial features (such as lateralized targets or cues), which confound alerting with spatial selection. Our design addresses this gap by employing central visual targets and non-lateralized auditory cues, thereby isolating the temporal boost of phasic alerting from spatial orienting. Across four experiments, participants reported the presence and orientation of a central Gabor patch presented at near-threshold ([Formula: see text] detection) or higher visibility ([Formula: see text] detection) levels. An auditory alerting tone was presented prior to, simultaneously with, or after the Gabor, at various short and long stimulus onset asynchronies, with both short and long temporal ranges. Results consistently showed that pre-stimulus and simultaneous cues significantly enhanced conscious perception, increasing both seen rates and (in some experiments) perceptual sensitivity. Crucially, the presence of retro-cue benefits was observed at higher stimulus visibility, but not at near-threshold, suggesting a potential influence of target visibility on retro-cue efficacy. When targets were near-threshold, retro-cues did not reliably improve conscious perception, whereas tones presented 200 ms after target offset significantly increased the proportion of seen reports when target visibility was increased. These findings indicate that non-spatial auditory retro-cues can modulate conscious report when the underlying sensory trace is sufficiently robust. More broadly, they show that the timing of conscious access can be influenced by late alerting signals even in the absence of spatial information, providing a behavioural platform to refine models of how alerting and evidence strength interact in conscious perception.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42853314What 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.