Bibliographic record
Abstract
Selective attention can be employed to a restricted region in space or to specific objects. Many properties of this attentional window or spotlight are not well understood. In the present study, we examined the question whether the putative shape of the attentional spotlight can be determined by endogenous cueing within a visual search paradigm. Participants searched for a target among distractors, which were arranged within a vertical or horizontal rectangle. The shape of this rectangle was cued endogenously in a valid or invalid way. Response times (RTs) to correct identification of target orientation were recorded. In Experiment 1, the difference between valid and invalid RTs demonstrated that cueing resulted in elongated attentional areas. This was true only for a group of experienced psychophysical participants, whereas a group of inexperienced participants were not able to use cueing in this way. In Experiment 2, the line motion illusion was used to examine the spatial properties of the attended area. The results confirmed for both experienced and inexperienced participants that attention was confined to the cued elongated area only. We present converging evidence for an attentional spotlight whose shape can be adjusted flexibly by appropriate endogenous cueing.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".