The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Central and Peripheral Precuing of Forced-Choice Discrimination
Abstract
There are suggestions in the literature that spatial precuing of attention with peripheral and central cues may be mediated by different mechanisms. To investigate this issue, data from two previous papers were reanalysed to investigate the complete time course of precuing target location with either: (1) a peripheral cue that may draw attention reflexively, or (2) a central, symbolic cue that may require attention to be directed voluntarily. This analysis led to predictions that were tested in another experiment. The main result of this experiment was that a peripheral cue produced its largest effects on discrimination performance within 100 msec, whereas a central cue required approximately 300 msec to achieve maximum effects. In conjunction with previous findings, the present evidence for time differences between the two cuing conditions suggests that more than one process is involved in the spatial precuing 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
Attention gating in short-term visual memory.
Reeves, A., & Sperling, G. (1986) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.93.2.180 · Cited by 422
Cited by
The reliability paradox: Why robust cognitive tasks do not produce reliable individual differences
Hedge, C., Powell, G., & Sumner, P. (2018) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-017-0935-1 · Cited by 1,457
Gaze cueing of attention: visual attention, social cognition, and individual differences
Frischen, A., Bayliss, A. P., & Tipper, S. P. (2007) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.133.4.694 · Cited by 1,473
Carrasco, M., Ling, S., & Read, S. (2004) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nn1194 · Cited by 1,085
The Role of Stimulus-Driven and Goal-Driven Control in Saccadic Visual Selection.
van Zoest, W., Donk, M., & Theeuwes, J. (2004) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance · doi:10.1037/0096-1523.30.4.749 · Cited by 330
Crossmodal links between vision and touch in covert endogenous spatial attention.
Spence, C., Pavani, F., & Driver, J. (2000) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance · doi:10.1037/0096-1523.26.4.1298 · Cited by 282
Metadata
- Authors
- Cheal, M., & Lyon, D. R.
- Venue
- The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1991-11
- Volume
- 43
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 859-880
- ISSN
- 0272-4987 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-0740
- OpenAlex
- W2041595782
- Cited by
- 360
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 2.72
- 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: Central and Peripheral Precuing of Forced-Choice Discrimination. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/14640749108400960
- The paper
- Cheal, M., & Lyon, D. R. (1991). Central and Peripheral Precuing of Forced-Choice Discrimination. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A. https://doi.org/10.1080/14640749108400960
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.
