The Response Activation Model and Cross-Modal Facilitation and Inhibition of Return: A Trajectory Analysis
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
Non-informative spatial cues presented prior to a goal-directed movement influence not only movement initiation time but also the spatial characteristics of the movement trajectories. These trajectory effects are thought to stem from an integration of competing motor responses. In the present experiments, trajectories of rapid aiming movements were examined under the constraints of a cue-target inhibition of return (IOR) paradigm. Aiming movements were made to targets that were preceded by a cue stimulus in the same or different location. Four experiments were conducted in which the modality of the cue and target stimulus was manipulated across vision and audition. Although facilitation effects were present under the cross modality protocols, IOR effects were observed only for same cue-target pairings. At short stimulus onset asynchronies, limb trajectories deviated toward the target that had just been cued, particularly when the cue occurred in left space. These trajectory effects are consistent with response activation models of selective attention and movement preparation.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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