Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Types of Selection01:46

Types of Selection

Natural selection influences the frequencies of particular alleles and phenotypes within populations in several different ways. Primarily, natural selection can be directional, stabilizing, or disruptive. Directional selection favors one extreme trait and shifts the population towards that phenotype while selecting against individuals displaying alternate traits. Stabilizing selection favors an intermediate trait with a narrow range of variation. Deviation from the optimal phenotype towards an...

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Preference for symmetry, balance, or proximity in picture aesthetics depends on the method of evaluation.

i-Perception·2025
Same author

Individual preferences for certain types of spirals and the possible role of creativity.

Scientific reports·2025
Same author

A toolbox for calculating quantitative image properties in aesthetics research.

Behavior research methods·2025
Same author

Curviness is a better predictor of a woman's body attractiveness than the waist-to-hip ratio.

Scientific reports·2024
Same author

The effect of expertise on the creation and evaluation of visual compositions in terms of creativity and beauty.

Scientific reports·2024
Same author

Golden spiral or Fibonacci spiral: Which is more beautiful and why?

i-Perception·2024

Related Experiment Video

Updated: May 17, 2026

The Attentional Set Shifting Task: A Measure of Cognitive Flexibility in Mice
09:15

The Attentional Set Shifting Task: A Measure of Cognitive Flexibility in Mice

Published on: February 4, 2015

Does attentional selectivity in the flanker task improve discretely or gradually?

Ronald Hübner1, Lisa Töbel

  • 1Fachbereich Psychologie, Universität Konstanz Konstanz, Germany.

Frontiers in Psychology
|November 1, 2012
PubMed
Summary

Attentional selectivity improvement is debated. This study shows model superiority depends on experimental timing, suggesting methodological details are crucial for understanding discrete versus continuous attention.

Keywords:
continuous versus discretediffusion modelsflanker taskmodelingselective attention

More Related Videos

A Gaze-Contingent Display Framework for Perceptual Learning Research with Simulated Central Vision Loss
07:12

A Gaze-Contingent Display Framework for Perceptual Learning Research with Simulated Central Vision Loss

Published on: April 11, 2025

Investigating the Deployment of Visual Attention Before Accurate and Averaging Saccades via Eye Tracking and Assessment of Visual Sensitivity
06:46

Investigating the Deployment of Visual Attention Before Accurate and Averaging Saccades via Eye Tracking and Assessment of Visual Sensitivity

Published on: March 18, 2019

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: May 17, 2026

The Attentional Set Shifting Task: A Measure of Cognitive Flexibility in Mice
09:15

The Attentional Set Shifting Task: A Measure of Cognitive Flexibility in Mice

Published on: February 4, 2015

A Gaze-Contingent Display Framework for Perceptual Learning Research with Simulated Central Vision Loss
07:12

A Gaze-Contingent Display Framework for Perceptual Learning Research with Simulated Central Vision Loss

Published on: April 11, 2025

Investigating the Deployment of Visual Attention Before Accurate and Averaging Saccades via Eye Tracking and Assessment of Visual Sensitivity
06:46

Investigating the Deployment of Visual Attention Before Accurate and Averaging Saccades via Eye Tracking and Assessment of Visual Sensitivity

Published on: March 18, 2019

Area of Science:

  • Cognitive Psychology
  • Neuroscience
  • Computational Modeling

Background:

  • The nature of attentional selectivity improvement during stimulus processing remains debated.
  • Previous studies yielded conflicting results regarding discrete (Dual-Stage Two-Phase model) versus continuous (shrinking-spotlight model) attentional improvement.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To investigate the generalizability of the shrinking-spotlight (SSP) model's superiority over the Dual-Stage Two-Phase (DSTP) model.
  • To determine if methodological factors, such as the response-stimulus interval, influence model selection in attentional research.

Main Methods:

  • Fitting the SSP model to data from a previous study (Hübner et al., 2010).
  • Conducting four experiments manipulating the response-stimulus interval.
  • Comparing the performance of the DSTP and SSP models across different experimental conditions.

Main Results:

  • The DSTP model was superior when fitted to Hübner et al.'s original data.
  • Model superiority was found to be dependent on the response-stimulus interval.
  • Neither the DSTP nor the SSP model consistently outperformed the other across all tested conditions.

Conclusions:

  • Methodological details, specifically the response-stimulus interval, critically influence the selection of computational models for attentional selectivity.
  • Further comparative studies are necessary to definitively resolve whether attentional selectivity improves discretely or continuously.