Cited by 7,230Visual perception and processing mechanismsNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesVisual Attention and Saliency Detection

Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task

Open access
Eriksen, Barbara A., Eriksen, Charles W.·1974·Perception & Psychophysics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3758/bf03203267

Cites

16 of 16 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The flanker task is a test of selective attention and response inhibition that activates the anterior cingulate cortex and pre-supplementary motor cortex and provides a more efficient and reliable measure of ERN amplitude than the Stroop or Go/NoGo tasks.

    “The flanker task is a test of selective attention and response inhibition that activates the anterior cingulate cortex and pre-supplementary motor cortex [37] and provides a more efficient and reliable measure of ERN amplitude than the Stroop or Go/NoGo tasks [15, 38].”

    From Altered Error Monitoring and Decreased Flanker Task Accuracy in Pediatric Obsessive–Compulsive Disorder (2026) · cites this paper as [37]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 1 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • ERN is most commonly measured with executive function and inhibition tasks such as the Eriksen flanker task.

    “and is most commonly measured with executive function and inhibition tasks such as the Eriksen flanker task (Eriksen & Eriksen, 1974).”
  • The study used a well-validated version of the classical Eriksen flanker task, implemented as part of the National Institutes of Health Toolbox, as a standardized measure of cognitive control.

    “a well-validated version of the classical Eriksen flanker task (35), implemented as part of the National Institute of Health toolbox for Assessment of Neurological and Behavioral Function (36, 37)”

    From Multimodal imaging of the self-regulating developing brain (2012) · cites this paper as [35]

  • Flanker interference decreases with increasing distance from the central target.

    “Also consistent with the spatially limited scope of attentional focus, previous research has found that flanker interference decreases with increasing distance from the central target, despite response competition demands remaining constant (39, 40).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Eriksen, B. A., & Eriksen, C. W.
Affiliations
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
Venue
Perception & Psychophysics
Published
1974-01
Volume
16
Issue
1
Pages
143-149
ISSN
  • 0031-5117 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-5962
OpenAlex
W2058317558
Cited by
7,230
References
16
Citations by year
2026: 285 · 2025: 374 · 2024: 382 · 2023: 374 · 2022: 393 · 2021: 448 · 2020: 421 · 2019: 364 · 2018: 400 · 2017: 305 · 2016: 310 · 2015: 307 · 2014: 324 · 2013: 257 · 2012: 254
FWCI
7.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Perception & Psychophysics (publishedVersion)
Funders
U.S. Public Health Service
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Visual Attention and Saliency Detection
Keywords
letter recognition, response compatibility, response inhibition, response sets, reaction time, tachistoscopic presentation, channel capacity

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