Cited by 38Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesVisual Attention and Saliency DetectionVisual perception and processing mechanisms

Distracted by danger: Temporal and spatial dynamics of visual selection in the presence of threat

Open access
Mulckhuyse, Manon, Dalmaijer, Edwin S.·2016·Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience

Abstract

Threatening stimuli are known to influence attentional and visual processes in order to prioritize selection. For example, previous research showed faster detection of threatening relative to nonthreatening stimuli. This has led to the proposal that threatening stimuli are prioritized automatically via a rapid subcortical route. However, in most studies, the threatening stimulus is always to some extent task relevant. Therefore, it is still unclear if threatening stimuli are automatically prioritized by the visual system. We used the additional singleton paradigm with task-irrelevant fear-conditioned distractors (CS+ and CS-) and indexed the time course of eye movement behavior. The results demonstrate automatic prioritization of threat. First, mean latency of saccades directed to the neutral target was increased in the presence of a threatening (CS+) relative to a nonthreatening distractor (CS-), indicating exogenous attentional capture and delayed disengagement of covert attention. Second, more error saccades were directed to the threatening than to the nonthreatening distractor, indicating a modulation of automatically driven saccades. Nevertheless, cumulative distributions of the saccade latencies showed no modulation of threat for the fastest goal-driven saccades, and threat did not affect the latency of the error saccades to the distractors. Together these results suggest that threatening stimuli are automatically prioritized in attentional and visual selection but not via faster processing. Rather, we suggest that prioritization results from an enhanced representation of the threatening stimulus in the oculomotor system, which drives attentional and visual selection. The current findings are interpreted in terms of a neurobiological model of saccade programming.

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/s13415-015-0391-2

Cites

86 of 86 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?

  • Fear-associated stimuli strongly bias spatial attention.

    “Corroborating evidence comes from fear-conditioning studies which show that fear-associated stimuli strongly bias spatial attention (Mulckhuyse & Dalmaijer, 2016; Wang, Yu, & Zhou, 2013).”

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

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

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Wilmington, DE: Wiley-Liss.
  2. Linke, R., De Lima, A. D., Schwegler, H., & Pape, H. C. (1999). Direct synaptic connections of axons from the superior colliculus with identified thalamo-amygdaloid projection neurons in the rat: Possible substrates of a subcortical visual pathway to the amygdala. Journal of Comparative Neurology, 403, 158-170.
  3. Vuilleumier, P. (2005). How brains beware: Neural systems for emotional attention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(12), 585-594.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mulckhuyse, M., & Dalmaijer, E. S.
Affiliations
  • Radboud University Nijmegen (NL)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
Corresponding author
Mulckhuyse, Manon
Venue
Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience
Published
2015-11-06
Volume
16
Issue
2
Pages
315-324
ISSN
  • 1530-7026 (ISSN-L)
  • 1531-135X
OpenAlex
W2258629715
Cited by
38
References
86
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 3
FWCI
2.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cognitive Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Explore Bristol Research (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • European Commission (606901)
  • Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
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
threat detection, attentional capture, saccade programming, fear conditioning, threat prioritization, eye movements, saccade latency, distractor processing, oculomotor system
MeSH terms
Adult, Attention, Conditioning, Classical, Female, Humans, Male, Photic Stimulation, Reaction Time, Saccades, Visual Acuity, 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