Terms of debate: Consensus definitions to guide the scientific discourse on visual distraction
DOI: 10.3758/s13414-023-02820-3
archive: archived pipeline: cataloged verified
Get this paper ↗ (DOI — opens at the source; we link to it, we don't host it)
Summary
This tutorial review addresses the lack of terminological consensus in the field of visual distraction, a problem that impedes scientific communication and theoretical progress. The authors argue that inconsistent definitions of core terms across subfields and individual researchers create ambiguity, hinder interdisciplinary exchange, and obscure genuine theoretical disagreements. Motivated by the need to establish a common language for hypothesis-driven research, an international group of experts with diverse theoretical stances collaborated to homogenize the usage of terms central to visual search and distraction. The study employed an "adversarial collaboration" method, wherein experts engaged in extensive discussions to reconcile idiosyncratic definitions. The resulting paper is structured into three parts: essays discussing clusters of related terms, a comprehensive glossary of consensually defined terms, and an appendix detailing the project’s genesis. The authors focused on terms most relevant to fundamental research, providing both conceptual and operational definitions. Where applicable, they specified how constructs are measured or manipulated and identified synonyms to clarify overlapping terminology. The scope covers clusters such as stimuli, features, tasks, paradigms, templates, types of distraction, priority maps, guidance, modulation, and timing. Key findings include the identification of significant heterogeneity in term usage, which was often tied to researchers' theoretical positions. The paper provides precise definitions for critical concepts, such as distinguishing between "target-defining" and "search-guiding" features, and clarifying the difference between absolute and relative features. It differentiates between "distractors" (irrelevant stimuli with potential to attract attention) and "nontargets" (homogeneous background stimuli), noting that a stimulus’s role can depend on the observer’s attentional strategy. The authors also clarify distinctions between various experimental paradigms, such as the additional-singleton paradigm and spatial-cueing paradigm, and define specific task types like detection, localization, and discrimination. Additionally, the paper addresses the complexity of measuring "salience," noting the lack of consensus on operational metrics and the limitations of computational models. The significance of this work lies in its provision of a standardized reference text that facilitates communication across theoretical standpoints and disciplines. By establishing clear definitions, the paper aims to help researchers distinguish between linguistic misunderstandings and actual theoretical discrepancies, thereby fostering more focused empirical and theoretical work. The authors suggest this adversarial collaboration model can serve as a template for other psychological fields seeking to build a solid groundwork for theorizing. While acknowledging the risk of "calcification" where rigid definitions might constrain future phenomena, the authors argue that this shared vocabulary provides a necessary skeleton for the field, aiding both experts in refining their hypotheses and novices in entering the domain.
Key finding
An international group of experts established consensus definitions for central terms in visual distraction research to resolve heterogeneity and facilitate scientific communication.
Methodology
review
Sample size: 19
Provenance
The full processing record for this entry. Every stage of this paper's journey through the pipeline is logged — what ran, with which tool and model, how many attempts it took, and when it last completed. Discovered via author_sweep_intake on 2026-05-28.
| Stage | Outcome | Tool | Model | Prompt | Attempts | Completed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| discover | success | author_sweep | — | — | 2 | 2026-05-28 |
| archive | success | canonical_url | — | — | 1 | 2026-06-04 |
| extract | success | cached | — | — | 3 | 2026-06-10 |
| clean | success | clean | — | — | 1 | 2026-06-04 |
| chunk | success | chunk | — | — | 1 | 2026-06-04 |
| embed | success | embed | Qwen/Qwen3-Embedding-8B | — | 1 | 2026-06-04 |
| enrich | success | — | — | — | 1 | 2026-05-28 |
| promote | success | — | — | — | 1 | 2026-06-04 |
| summarize | success | llm | qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant | summ-v5 | 2 | 2026-06-10 |
| tag | success | vector_similarity | — | — | 15 | 2026-06-11 |
| verify | success | — | — | — | 2 | 2026-06-10 |
Summary generated by qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant on 2026-06-10; verification: verified.
Topics
Ranked by relevance to this paper. Hover a topic for its definition.
- visual search
- attention selective divided
- inattentional change blindness
- visual
- cognitive
- external distraction
- multisensory crossmodal
Information type
What kind of knowledge this paper contributes, grouped by family — independent of topic (what it is about) and method (how it was studied).
- Theoretical Contribution: conceptual framework, theory or model