Bibliographic record
Abstract
The repetition blindness (RB) and repetition deafness (RD) effects demonstrate that repeated objects are more difficult to notice than unrepeated ones when presented within rapid streams of stimuli. Previous research has shown that RB can occur even if two visual targets are similar but not completely identical. In the present study we investigated RD for similar non-identical auditory targets. In Experiment 1 we compared recall performance for similar target pairs to that for identical target pairs and found that the difference (the RD) was significantly smaller than when comparing recall performance for unrelated target pairs to that for identical target pairs. In Experiment 2 we presented similar, identical and unrelated target pairs in a within-participants design and confirmed that RD occurs for similar targets but to a lesser extent than it does for identical targets. In both experiments, the influence of response biases and lexical competition effects were minimized so as to render the explanation of the results clear in terms of pure perceptual processes. The data reported here support models that predict perceptual RB and RD between similar items, as opposed to other accounts that predict RB and RD only for items sharing the same identity.
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 | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".