Numerosity and Rhythmicity in Stimulus-Response Compatibility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When people must respond discriminatively to 1 or 2 stimuli by making 1 or 2 taps of a response key, they initiate the response more rapidly when the correct number of taps matches the number of stimuli (compatible condition) than when it mismatches (incompatible condition; J. O. Miller, S. G. Atkins, & F. Van Nes, 2005). Miller et al. sometimes found an effect of compatibility on response execution time, as reflected in the interresponse intervals between successive taps. The authors report 2 further experiments (N = 8 participants) in which they generalized the numerosity compatibility effects on response-initiation time and interresponse intervals to 2- versus 3-stimulus sequences. In addition, they varied gap length between stimuli to see whether the rhythm of the stimulus would influence that of the response. Weak rhythmicity effects were repeatedly found, but those were too small to suggest a plausible alternative explanation for the numerosity compatibility effect on response-initiation time.
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 | 0.004 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".