MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1979258043 · doi:10.1080/13506280544000246

Inhibition of return promotes stop-signal inhibition by delaying responses

2006· article· en· W1979258043 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

VenueVisual Cognition · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInhibition of returnPsychologyResponse inhibitionVisual searchMechanism (biology)NeuroscienceCognitive psychologyVisual attentionCommunicationCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inhibition of return (10R) refers to a mechanism that slows response times (RTs) to detect, localize, or discriminate a target that is presented at a location previously occupied by an irrelevant peripheral cue. Generally, the slowing of RTs is described as a negative effect on responding that is believed to promote searching to new locations. In this report, we consider whether IOR might benefit performance when the goal is to prevent a prepared response. Using the stop-signal paradigm, we show that IOR improved the ability to inhibit a prepared response by delaying responses to the target. Thus, in addition to aiding visual search, IOR may also provide an opportunity for the adjustment of decisions and behaviour in accordance with the demands of a dynamic environment.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.544

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.272 · 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