MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The automaticity of vantage point shifts within a synaesthetes’ spatial calendar

2011· article· en· W1605451555 on OpenAlexaff
Michelle Jarick, Candice Jensen, Michael J. Dixon, Daniel Smilek

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuropsychology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMultisensory perception and integration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutomaticityCued speechPsychologySpace (punctuation)Cognitive psychologyTask (project management)Point (geometry)Interval (graph theory)CognitionComputer scienceMathematicsNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Time-space synaesthetes report that time units (e.g., months, days, hours) occupy idiosyncratic spatial locations. For the synaesthete (L), the months of the year are projected out in external space in the shape of a 'scoreboard 7', where January to July extend across the top from left to right and August to December make up the vertical segment from top to bottom. Interestingly, L can change the mental vantage point (MVP) from where she views her month-space depending on whether she sees or hears the month name. We used a spatial cueing task to demonstrate that L's attention could be directed to locations within her time-space and change vantage points automatically - from trial to trial. We also sought to eliminate any influence of strategy on L's performance by shortening the interval between the cue and target onset to only 150 ms, and have the targets fall in synaesthetically cued locations on only 15% of trials. If L's performance was attributable to intentionally using the cue to predict target location, these manipulations should eliminate any cueing effects. In two separate experiments, we found that L still showed an attentional bias consistent with her synaesthesia. Thus, we attribute L's rapid and resilient cueing effects to the automaticity of her spatial forms.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.271 · 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

Citations47
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeuropsychologySame topicMultisensory perception and integrationFrench-language works237,207