Allocating visual attention to grouped objects
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 purpose of the present study is to examine the allocation of visual attention to independent stimuli that are grouped together through a set of Gestalt principles. The basic display used in the experiments consisted of a 4 × 4 matrix of placeholders, made up of 12 circles and 4 squares. In Experiment 1, the squares were located adjacent to each other (i.e., perceptually grouped together), whereas in Experiment 2 the squares were located in nonadjacent locations (i.e., not perceptually grouped). Following a peripheral cue at a square placeholder, faster detection responses were found for targets appearing in the noncued square placeholders than in corresponding circle placeholders for Experiment 1. This pattern of results was not found in Experiment 2. Experiment 3 used an alternate display to rule out the possibility that the results of Experiment 1 were due to shape-based object priming. Experiment 4 extended the cue–target SOA to examine whether inhibition of return would spread through grouped objects—it did not. These findings provide new insights into the boundary conditions for what, exactly, constitutes an object.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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