The automaticity of vantage point shifts within a synaesthetes’ spatial calendar
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 it