The attentional repulsion effect distorts space but not objects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Attentional Repulsion Effect (ARE) is a spatial consequence of allocating attention to peripheral locations. Specifically, a reflexive shift of attention to the periphery creates an error in the localization of visual stimuli in the direction opposite to the shift. Thus, the ARE appears to be a location-based effect involving the dorsal stream of visual processing. While the ARE is one of the few known spatial consequences of orienting attention, a great deal is known regarding the temporal consequences of shifting attention. In this reaction-time based literature, it is well-documented that there are both location- and object-based components associated in the allocation of attention (e.g., Egly rectangles paradigm, inhibition of return). Given that these two components are often found in temporal measures of attention, the goal of the present three experiments is to determine if the ARE can distort the perception of both spatial locations and the shape of objects. Experiment 1 used a central diamond shape with circles at the top and bottom vertices, and subjects were instructed to focus on the shape of the whole diamond or the locations of the two circles. In Experiment 2 a classic Vernier task served as the location condition, while connecting the Vernier to form a solid line constituted the object condition. Experiment 3 entailed viewing a central diamond shape once again, with the distinction from Experiment 1 being that subjects did not have to make an instantaneous decision; rather a response screen was used to assess subjects’ memorized perception of the target. All three experiments produced robust location-based AREs, but no object-based AREs. These findings suggest that the ARE, unlike many temporal consequences of shifting attention, does not have an object-based component.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".