Dissociations of personally significant and task-relevant distractors inside and outside the focus of attention: A combined behavioral and psychophysiological study
Abstract
Studies of attentional capture by personally significant stimuli have reached inconsistent results, possibly because of improper control of the participants' attention. In the present study, the authors controlled visual attention by using a Stroop-like task. Participants responded to a central color and ignored a word presented either centrally (i.e., at the focus of attention) or peripherally (i.e., outside the focus of attention). Central words led to slower reaction times and larger orienting responses for significant items than for neutral items. These effects largely disappeared when the words appeared in a peripheral location. The peripheral words interfered with performance when they were relevant to task demands. These results indicate that there is a fundamental difference between task-relevant words and personally significant words: The former capture attention even when presented peripherally, whereas the latter do not.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
A person's own name is a highly salient and attention-grabbing signal with increased priority.
“A person ' s own name is a highly salient and attention-grabbing signal, which has increased priority”
From Exploring Theater Neuroscience: Using Wearable Functional Near-infrared Spectroscopy to Measure the Sense of Self and Interpersonal Coordination in Professional Actors (2022) · cites this paper as Gronau, Cohen, & Ben-Shakhar, 2003
The positive response to self-name calling in Channel 20 is consistent with prior literature showing self-name prioritization and suggests that fNIRS is able to detect a self-name response in typical adults.
“The positive response to self-name calling in Channel 20 is consistent with prior literature showing self-name prioritization (Gronau et al., 2003; Shapiro et al., 1997) and suggests that fNIRS is able to detect a self-name response in typical adults.”
From Exploring Theater Neuroscience: Using Wearable Functional Near-infrared Spectroscopy to Measure the Sense of Self and Interpersonal Coordination in Professional Actors (2022) · cites this paper as Gronau et al., 2003
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 92 · Cited by 122
- Authors
- Gronau, N., Cohen, A., & Ben-Shakhar, G.
- Affiliations
- Hebrew University of Jerusalem (IL)
- ORCID
- Gronau, Nurit
- Venue
- Journal of Experimental Psychology: General
- Published
- 2003
- Volume
- 132
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 512-529
- ISSN
- 0096-3445 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-2222
- OpenAlex
- W1980023603
- Cited by
- 122
- References
- 92
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 6
- FWCI
- 1.18
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Experimental Psychology General (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Visual Attention and Saliency Detection
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
- Keywords
- attentional capture, visual attention, peripheral attention, orienting response, Stroop-like task, attentional control, reaction time, emotional words
- MeSH terms
- Attention, Humans, Reaction Time, Visual Perception
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