MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1987007107 · doi:10.1100/tsw.2005.20

Speed-Accuracy Tradeoff Operator Characteristics of Endogenous and Exogenous Covert Orienting of Attention

2005· article· en· W1987007107 on OpenAlexafffund
Peter A. McCormick, Lori Francis

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Scientific World JOURNAL · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Canadian institutionsSaint Mary's UniversitySt. Mary's UniversitySt. Francis Xavier University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaSt. Francis Xavier University
KeywordsCued speechCovertComputer scienceTask (project management)PerceptionOperator (biology)Cognitive psychologySensitivity (control systems)PsychologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is debate over the mechanisms that govern the orienting of attention. Some argue that the enhanced performance observed at a cued location is the result of increased perceptual sensitivity or preferential access to decision-making processes. It has also been suggested that these effects may be the result of trades in speed for accuracy on the part of the observers. In the present study, observers performed either an exogenous or an endogenous orienting of attention task under both normal instructions (respond as quickly and as accurately as possible) and speeded instructions that used a deadline procedure to limit the amount of time observers had to complete a choice reaction time (CRT) task. An examination of the speed-accuracy operating characteristics (SAOCs) yielded evidence against the notion that CRT precuing effects are due primarily to a tradeoff of accuracy for speed.

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 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)0.000
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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.633

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.142
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Scientific World JOURNALSame topicNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesFrench-language works237,207