MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1972660082 · doi:10.1167/12.9.1336

Access to visual short-term memory is postponed by a concurrent speeded auditory task in the psychological refractory period paradigm

2012· article· en· W1972660082 on OpenAlexaff
Benoît Brisson, Nicolas Robitaille, Isabelle Fafard

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Fundersnot available
KeywordsN2pcStimulus onset asynchronyStimulus (psychology)Fixation (population genetics)Visual short-term memoryVisual searchVisual memoryComputer scienceVisual spatial attentionPsychologyAudiologyCognitive psychologyVisual attentionCognitionNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previous event-related potential studies have shown that a speeded auditory task interferes with the deployment of visual-spatial attention (as indexed by the N2pc component) and delays encoding into visual short-term memory (as indexed by the SPCN onset latency). However, it is unclear whether the delay of the SPCN reflects postponement or slowing of encoding in visual short-term memory. Since these previous studies only used visual tasks that required the deployment of visual-spatial attention, it is also unclear whether a delay in encoding would occur in absence of a deployment of visual-spatial attention. The goal of the present study was to investigate these two questions. A tone (T1) was presented, followed by a masked visual target (T2). The inter-stimulus interval between T2 and its mask (T2-mask ISI) was 133, 150, 167, or 183 ms. The T1–T2 stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) was 300, 650, or 1000 ms. A speeded response was required only for T1. T2 was lateralized in Experiment 1 and presented at fixation in Experiment 2. In both experiments. mean reaction time to T1 as well as T1 accuracy were identical in all conditions. In both experiments, T2 accuracy increased as SOA increased, indicating that encoding into visual short-term memory was delayed during the PRP period even when T2 was presented at fixation. As expected, T2 accuracy increased as ISI increased in both experiments. Importantly, the rate at which T2 accuracy increased across ISI did not vary across SOAs, suggesting that speed of encoding was not affected by concurrent central processing in the auditory task. Conditional analysis based on Task1 difficulty corroborated the analyses based on effects of SOA. In sum, results suggest that access to visual short-term memory is postponed by a concurrent speeded auditory task, whether or not the visual task requires deployment of visual-spatial attention. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2012

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)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.165
GPT teacher head0.479
Teacher spread0.313 · 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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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