The Attentional Blink is Immune to Masking-Induced Data Limits
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
The attentional blink is the robust finding that processing a masked item (T1) hinders the subsequent identification of a backwards masked second item (T2), which follows soon after the first one. There has been some debate about the theoretically important relation between the difficulty of T1 processing and the ensuing blink. In Experiment 1 we manipulated the difficulty of T1 in such a way as to affect the quality of data without altering the amount of resources allocated to its identification. We found no relation between the accuracy of T1 identification and the blink. In Experiment 2, the same difficulty manipulation was applied to T2, and we observed an additive pattern with the blink. Together, this pattern of results indicates that a data-limited difficulty manipulation does not affect the blink, whether applied to T1 or T2. In Experiment 3 we used an individual differences methodology to show that performance in the traditional "stream"-like presentation (rapid serial visual presentation) was highly correlated with performance in our modified "target mask, target mask" paradigm, thus allowing for comparisons beyond the present methodology to much of the previous literature that has used the stream paradigm.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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