MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1976003206 · doi:10.1167/12.6.11

Dual-state modulation of the contextual cueing effect: Evidence from eye movement recordings

2012· article· en· W1976003206 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersFundamental Research Funds for the Central UniversitiesSouthwest University
KeywordsFacilitationEye movementPerceptionTask (project management)Cognitive psychologyPsychologySet (abstract data type)Selection (genetic algorithm)Movement (music)Mechanism (biology)Dual (grammatical number)CommunicationNeuroscienceComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The repeated configurations of random elements induce a better search performance than that of the displays of novel random configurations. The mechanism of such contextual cueing effect has been investigated through the use of the RT × Set Size function. There are divergent views on whether the contextual cueing effect is driven by attentional guidance or facilitation of initial perceptual processing or response selection. To explore this question, we used eye movement recording in this study, which offers information about the substages of the search task. The results suggest that the contextual cueing effect is contributed mainly by attentional guidance, and facilitation of response selection also plays a role.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.118
Threshold uncertainty score0.216

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.302 · 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