The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Abrupt visual onsets and selective attention: Voluntary versus automatic allocation.
Abstract
The hypothesis that abrupt visual onsets capture attention automatically, as suggested by Yantis and Jonides (1984) was tested in four experiments.A centrally located cue directed attention to one of several stimulus positions in preparation for the identification of a target letter embedded in an army of distractor letters.In all experiments, one stimulus (either the target or one of the distractors) had an abrupt onset; the remaining letters did not.The effectiveness of the cue was manipulated (varying either its duration or its predictive validity) to test whether abrupt onsets capture attention even when subjects are in a highly focused attentional state.Results showed that onsets do not necessarily capture attention in violation of an observer's intentions.A mechanism for partially automatic attentional capture by abrupt onset is proposed, and the diagnosticity of the intentionality criterion for automaticity is discussed.Introspective and empirical evidence both suggest that the abrupt appearance of an object in the visual field "draws attention."A plausible account of this phenomenon is that there exists a mechanism that is tuned to abrupt onsets and that one of its functions is to direct visual attention to the locus of an abrupt onset.This in turn could result in the efficient identification of information at that location.Another way of stating the hypothesis is that abrupt onsets may capture visual attention automatically and cause the observer to process abrupt visual events with high priority.This hypothesis has two components.The first is that there is a mechanism that detects abrupt onsets and signals the visual attention system to allocate attentional resources to events exhibiting abrupt onsets.The second is that the allocation of attention resulting from such a signal is automatic.We examine each of these components in turn.The central thesis of this article is that although attention may be efficiently allocated to abrupt onset under some circumstances, this may not happen in a truly automatic fashion, as defined by widely held criteria.The implication of this thesis is either that attentional capture by abrupt onset is not automatic or that one of the commonly cited criteria for automaticity is not really diagnostic of automaticity.
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.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“For example, research demonstrated that when searching for a given target, physically salient distractors that are otherwise irrelevant for the task at hand can disrupt top-down control and capture attention (“attentional capture”: Theeuwes, 1992; Yantis & Jonides, 1990) as well as our eyes (“oculomotor capture”: Theeuwes, Kramer, Hahn & Irwin, 1998; Theeuwes, Kramer, Hahn, Irwin, & Zelinsky, 1999”
From Selection history: How reward modulates selectivity of visual attention. (2018) · cites this paper as Yantis & Jonides, 1990
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 2×
“…are known to be capable of aligning attention with a spatial location that is likely to contain task-relevant information within 200 ms of receiving that information (e.g., Eriksen & St. James, 1986; Murphy & Eriksen, 1987; Posner, 1980; Posner, Cohen, & Rafal, 1982; Remington & Pierce, 1984).”
BackgroundShiffrin, R. M., & Schneider, W. (1977) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.84.2.127 · Cited by 7,335
Controlled and automatic human information processing: I. Detection, search, and attention.
Schneider, W., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1977) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.84.1.1 · Cited by 5,902
Automatic and effortful processes in memory.
Hasher, L., & Zacks, R. T. (1979) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/0096-3445.108.3.356 · Cited by 2,812
Visual attention within and around the field of focal attention: A zoom lens model
Eriksen, C. W., & St. James, J. D. (1986) · Perception & Psychophysics · doi:10.3758/bf03211502 · Cited by 1,907
Cited by
Control of goal-directed and stimulus-driven attention in the brain
Corbetta, M., & Shulman, G. L. (2002) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn755 · Cited by 12,881
Involuntary covert orienting is contingent on attentional control settings
Folk, C. L., Remington, R. W., & Johnston, J. C. (1992) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance · doi:10.1037/0096-1523.18.4.1030 · Cited by 2,487
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
SPACE AND ATTENTION IN PARIETAL CORTEX
Colby, C. L., & Goldberg, M. E. (1999) · Annual Review of Neuroscience · doi:10.1146/annurev.neuro.22.1.319 · Cited by 1,710
Top–down and bottom–up control of visual selection
Theeuwes, J. (2010) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.02.006 · Cited by 1,385
Metadata
- Authors
- Yantis, S., & Jonides, J.
- Venue
- Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance
- Published
- 1990
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 121-134
- ISSN
- 0096-1523 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1277
- OpenAlex
- W4295698842
- Cited by
- 1,171
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 17.15
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Abrupt visual onsets and selective attention: Voluntary versus automatic allocation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/0096-1523.16.1.121
- The paper
- Yantis, S., & Jonides, J. (1990). Abrupt visual onsets and selective attention: Voluntary versus automatic allocation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.16.1.121
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.