MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1967104889 · doi:10.1080/02724980042000075

The Attentional Blink is Immune to Masking-Induced Data Limits

2001· article· en· W1967104889 on OpenAlexaff
Elizabeth McLaughlin, David I. Shore, Raymond M. Klein

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAttentional blinkRapid serial visual presentationVisual maskingMasking (illustration)Affect (linguistics)Identification (biology)Backward maskingCognitive psychologyPsychologyComputer sciencePerceptionVisual perceptionCommunicationNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.189
GPT teacher head0.444
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations105
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section ASame topicVisual perception and processing mechanismsFrench-language works237,207