The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Spatial covert attention increases contrast sensitivity across the CSF: support for signal enhancement
Open accessAbstract
This study is the first to report the benefits of spatial covert attention on contrast sensitivity in a wide range of spatial frequencies when a target alone was presented in the absence of a local post-mask. We used a peripheral precue (a small circle indicating the target location) to explore the effects of covert spatial attention on contrast sensitivity as assessed by orientation discrimination (Experiments 1-4), detection (Experiments 2 and 3) and localization (Experiment 3) tasks. In all four experiments the target (a Gabor patch ranging in spatial frequency from 0.5 to 10 cpd) was presented alone in one of eight possible locations equidistant from fixation. Contrast sensitivity was consistently higher for peripherally- than for neutrally-cued trials, even though we eliminated variables (distracters, global masks, local masks, and location uncertainty) that are known to contribute to an external noise reduction explanation of attention. When observers were presented with vertical and horizontal Gabor patches an external noise reduction signal detection model accounted for the cueing benefit in a discrimination task (Experiment 1). However, such a model could not account for this benefit when location uncertainty was reduced, either by: (a) Increasing overall performance level (Experiment 2); (b) increasing stimulus contrast to enable fine discriminations of slightly tilted suprathreshold stimuli (Experiment 3); and (c) presenting a local post-mask (Experiment 4). Given that attentional benefits occurred under conditions that exclude all variables predicted by the external noise reduction model, these results support the signal enhancement model of attention.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Posner, M. I. (1980) · Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1080/00335558008248231 · Cited by 9,670 · cited 1×
“According to the signal enhancement hypothesis, attention strengthens the stimulus’ representation (e.g. Bashinski & Bacharach, 1980; Posner, 1980; Downing, 1988; Luck, Hillyard, Mouloua, Woldorff, Clark & Hawkins, 1996; Müller, Picton, Valdes-Sosa, Riera, Teder-Sälejärvi & Hillyard, 1998).”
Cited by
Computational modelling of visual attention
Itti, L., & Koch, C. (2001) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/35058500 · Cited by 4,733
Emotion and Cognition: Insights from Studies of the Human Amygdala
Phelps, E. A. (2006) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070234 · Cited by 1,798
What attributes guide the deployment of visual attention and how do they do it?
Wolfe, J. M., & Horowitz, T. S. (2004) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn1411 · Cited by 1,766
Attentional modulation of visual processing
Reynolds, J. H., & Chelazzi, L. (2004) · Annual Review of Neuroscience · doi:10.1146/annurev.neuro.26.041002.131039 · Cited by 1,158
Carrasco, M., Ling, S., & Read, S. (2004) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nn1194 · Cited by 1,085
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Carrasco, M., Penpeci-Talgar, C., & Eckstein, M.
- Venue
- Vision Research
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2000-06
- Volume
- 40
- Issue
- 10-12
- Pages
- 1203-1215
- ISSN
- 0042-6989 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2134179220
- Cited by
- 477
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 6.96
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Spatial covert attention increases contrast sensitivity across the CSF: support for signal enhancement. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0042-6989(00)00024-9
- The paper
- Carrasco, M., Penpeci-Talgar, C., & Eckstein, M. (2000). Spatial covert attention increases contrast sensitivity across the CSF: support for signal enhancement. Vision Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0042-6989(00)00024-9
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.