MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1537744422 · doi:10.1111/psyp.12426

Failure of temporal selectivity: Electrophysiological evidence for (mis)selection of distractors during the attentional blink

2015· article· en· W1537744422 on OpenAlexafffund
Marie‐Ève Bourassa, François Vachon, Benoît Brisson

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychophysiology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAttentional blinkRapid serial visual presentationPsychologyElectrophysiologySelective attentionSelection (genetic algorithm)Cognitive psychologyAudiologyEvent-related potentialElectroencephalographyPerceptionNeuroscienceCognitionArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The attentional blink (AB) refers to the impairment in accurate report of a second target (T2) when presented shortly after a first target (T1) in a rapid serial visual presentation of distractors. The goal of the present study was to determine whether the AB is caused by a failure in early selection processes, which leads to the selection and consolidation of the wrong item in working memory, by measuring the frequency-related P3 to T2 and to T2 + 1. During the AB, an attenuation of the P3 to T2 was observed, as well as an increase in the amplitude of the P3 to T2 + 1. Whereas the P3 to T2 was observed only when T2 was correctly reported, the P3 to T2 + 1 was observed only in trials where T2 was incorrectly reported, and its amplitude was correlated to individual differences in misselection rate. These results support the claim that failure of temporal selection underlies the AB.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.147
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.242 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychophysiologySame topicVisual perception and processing mechanismsFrench-language works237,207