MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1588082477 · doi:10.1109/ijcnn.2005.1556385

A continuous aittractor neural network model of divided visual attention

2006· article· en· W1588082477 on OpenAlexaff
Dominic Standage, Thomas Trappenberg, Raymond M. Klein

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings. 2005 IEEE International Joint Conference on Neural Networks, 2005. · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceConstruct (python library)Mechanism (biology)AttractorWorking memoryArtificial neural networkVisual cortexNeuroscienceInhibition of returnSelective attentionCognitive psychologyLateral inhibitionNeural activityPosterior parietal cortexArtificial intelligenceVisual attentionPsychologyCognitionMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The biologically realistic model of selective visual attention by Deco et al. uses a continuous attractor neural network to simulate a saliency map in posterior parietal cortex. We test the ability of the model to explain experimental evidence on the distribution of spatial attention. The majority of evidence supports the view that attention is a unitary construct, but recent experiments provide evidence for split attention foci. We simulate two such experiments. Our results suggest that the ability to divide attention depends on sustained endogenous signals from short term memory to the saliency map, stressing the interplay between working memory mechanisms and attention. Our results also point to a mechanism whereby inhibitory endogenous signals may play a role in dividing attention, suggesting a possible mechanism for inhibition of return.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.663
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations4
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings. 2005 IEEE International Joint Conference on Neural Networks, 2005.Same topicVisual perception and processing mechanismsFrench-language works237,207