Cited by 94Visual Attention and Saliency DetectionNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesVisual perception and processing mechanisms

People look at the object they fear: oculomotor capture by stimuli that signal threat

Open access
Nissens, Tom, Failing, Michel, Theeuwes, Jan·2017·Cognition and Emotion

Abstract

It is known that people covertly attend to threatening stimuli even when it is not beneficial for the task. In the current study we examined whether overt selection is affected by the presence of an object that signals threat. We demonstrate that stimuli that signal the possibility of receiving an electric shock capture the eyes more often than stimuli signalling no shock. Capture occurred even though the threat-signalling stimulus was neither physically salient nor task relevant at any point during the experiment. Crucially, even though fixating the threat-related stimulus made it more likely to receive a shock, results indicate that participants could not help but doing it. Our findings indicate that the presence of a stimulus merely signalling the possibility of receiving a shock is prioritised in selection, and exogenously captures the eyes even when this ultimately results in the execution of the threat (i.e. receiving a shock). Oculomotor capture was particularly pronounced for the fastest saccades which is consistent with the idea that threat influences visual selection at an early stage of processing, when selection is mainly involuntarily.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/02699931.2016.1248905

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Nissens et al. observed oculomotor capture by the threat-signaling stimulus even under conditions where attending it was strongly discouraged and could be harmful.

    “Nissens et al. observed oculomotor capture by the threat-signaling stimulus even under these aggravated conditions.”

    From Selection history: How reward modulates selectivity of visual attention. (2018) · cites this paper as Nissens, Failing, & Theeuwes, 2016

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nissens, T., Failing, M., & Theeuwes, J.
Affiliations
  • Ghent University (BE)
  • Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL)
Corresponding author
Nissens, Tom
Venue
Cognition and Emotion
Published
2016-10-31
Volume
31
Issue
8
Pages
1707-1714
ISSN
  • 0269-9931 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-0600
OpenAlex
W2544759181
Cited by
94
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 3
FWCI
4.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cognition & Emotion (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • VU Research Portal (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
European Research Council (ERC-2012-AdG – 323413])
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Visual Attention and Saliency Detection
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
Keywords
oculomotor capture, electric shock, saccades, threat-related stimuli, covert attention
MeSH terms
Attention, Eye Movements, Fear, Female, Humans, Male, Photic Stimulation, Young Adult

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