MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1899072209 · doi:10.1111/psyp.12204

Masking of a first target in the attentional blink attenuates the <scp>P</scp>3 to the first target and delays the <scp>P</scp>3 to the second target

2014· article· en· W1899072209 on OpenAlexafffund
Benoît Brisson, Marie‐Ève Bourassa

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychophysiology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAttentional blinkRapid serial visual presentationPsychologyMasking (illustration)LagBackward maskingVisual maskingStimulus onset asynchronyAudiologyExtant taxonNeuroscienceCognitive psychologyCognitionVisual perceptionPerceptionComputer scienceBiologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The attentional blink (AB) refers to the decline in report accuracy of a second target (T2) when presented shortly after a first target (T1) in a rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) of distractors. It is known that masking T1 increases the magnitude of the AB, and masking a single target (equivalent to T1) in a RSVP stream attenuates the P3 to the target in correct trials. The major purpose of the present study was to clarify how these two effects may be integrated. An intervening distractor was presented at lag 1 (T1+1), at lag 2 (T1+2), or at neither of these two lags (no distractor). T2 was always presented at lag 3, as the last item in the stream. The P3 to T1 was attenuated and the P3 to T2 delayed in the T1+1 condition compared to the two other distractor conditions. These results clearly show that masking T1 attenuates the P3 to T1 and delays the P3 to T2 in the AB. Implications for extant theories of the AB are discussed.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.268
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations11
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychophysiologySame topicNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesFrench-language works237,207