MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1967115955 · doi:10.1167/9.8.185

Working memory influence on perceptual processing

2010· article· en· W1967115955 on OpenAlexaff
Diane Wilson, Claudie Charbonneau

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTask (project management)Visual searchPerceptionSet (abstract data type)Working memoryCognitive psychologyComputer scienceInterval (graph theory)PsychologyCognitionMathematicsNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examined the influence of working memory on perceptual processing. Each trial began with the presentation of a coloured square. Participants held the colour of the square in memory for a later memory task, and performed a visual search task during the retention interval. Perceptual difficulty on the search task was manipulated via a set size manipulation (2, 4, or 6 letters). Each letter on the search task was a different colour. The colour of the memory square was the same as the target letter, the same as one of the distractor letters, or different from all of the search letters. There was a benefit on the search task when the target letter was the same colour with this benefit increasing with set size. There, also was a cost on the search task when one of the distractor letters was the same colour with this cost remaining constant across set size. We conclude that perception can be biased towards objects that possess a perceptual feature that is consistent with the contents of working memory.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Vision→Same topicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies→French-language works237,207→