Interdependencies between attentional priming and perceptual interpretation of ambiguous stimuli
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Attentional selection and the perception of ambiguous visual input are both strongly influenced by past events. History dependencies in attention and in perception are, however normally considered unrelated and studied in separate fields. Here we investigate their relation. During 'ambiguous trials' observers viewed a briefly-presented ambiguous Necker cube, which has two possible perceptual interpretations. On 'search trials' observers searched among unambiguous cubes that each represented either of these interpretations, the target being an oddball that represented a different interpretation than the rest. When presenting consecutive ambiguous trials, perception on a given trial often conformed to earlier perception, an established example of percept priming. Similarly established, responses on consecutive search trials became faster when target identity repeated than when it changed, demonstrating attentional priming. Surprisingly, intermixing ambiguous trials and search trials revealed a mutual interaction: search responses were faster to targets representing the interpretation perceived on previous ambiguous trials, and perception during ambiguous trials tended to conform to the target on preceding search trials. For individual observers, the magnitude of the effect of ambiguous trials on subsequent search trials significantly predicted effect magnitude of search upon judgment of ambiguous stimuli. Moreover, the influence of perception upon subsequent search largely depended on perceptual ambiguity, since simple viewing of unambiguous cubes only minimally affected subsequent search speeds. Our results suggest a partial identity between attention priming and perception priming, thus bridging two hitherto unrelated fields of vision science. Beyond history dependencies, our results suggest that becoming aware of one visual interpretation while alternative interpretations are not perceived may be fundamentally similar to paying attention to some parts of visual input while ignoring others, reflecting the operation of overlapping visual and attentional mechanisms. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2013
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".