↓ Skip to main content

Probability cueing of distractor locations: both intertrial facilitation and statistical learning mediate interference reduction

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, November 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Readers on

mendeley
66 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Probability cueing of distractor locations: both intertrial facilitation and statistical learning mediate interference reduction
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, November 2014
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01195
Pubmed ID
Authors

Harriet Goschy, Sarolta Bakos, Hermann J. Müller, Michael Zehetleitner

Abstract

Targets in a visual search task are detected faster if they appear in a probable target region as compared to a less probable target region, an effect which has been termed "probability cueing." The present study investigated whether probability cueing cannot only speed up target detection, but also minimize distraction by distractors in probable distractor regions as compared to distractors in less probable distractor regions. To this end, three visual search experiments with a salient, but task-irrelevant, distractor ("additional singleton") were conducted. Experiment 1 demonstrated that observers can utilize uneven spatial distractor distributions to selectively reduce interference by distractors in frequent distractor regions as compared to distractors in rare distractor regions. Experiments 2 and 3 showed that intertrial facilitation, i.e., distractor position repetitions, and statistical learning (independent of distractor position repetitions) both contribute to the probability cueing effect for distractor locations. Taken together, the present results demonstrate that probability cueing of distractor locations has the potential to serve as a strong attentional cue for the shielding of likely distractor locations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Germany 1 2%
Unknown 64 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 20%
Student > Master 12 18%
Student > Bachelor 7 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Researcher 4 6%
Other 10 15%
Unknown 16 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 33 50%
Neuroscience 9 14%
Engineering 2 3%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 19 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 November 2014.
All research outputs
#13,182,656
of 22,769,322 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#12,467
of 29,682 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#122,596
of 262,797 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#239
of 379 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,769,322 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,682 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 262,797 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 379 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.