Distractor Interference in one- and two-handed selective reaching tasks.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In one foundational study of action-centred attention (Tipper et al. 1992), two patterns of distractor interference were reported: the ipsilateral effect - distractors on the same side of space as the effector caused more interference than distractors in the opposite side of space; and, the proximity effect - distractors closer to effector cause more interference than farther distractors. These patterns of interference are thought to emerge because distractors ipsilateral and closer to the effector activate salient competing responses and require more time to inhibit. One aspect that has not been addressed is how interference emerges when individuals need to choose responses between the hands. We hypothesized that distractors which activate responses for the other limb may cause greater interference than distractors that alter the movement specifications within a limb. This prediction is based on research showing that the specification of the arm occurs before the specification of movement direction and amplitude (Rosenbaum, 1980). Participants in the present study executed reaching movements to 1 of 4 (2 left, 2 right) possible target locations with and without a distractor. In Experiment 1, participants made ipsilateral reaches (left hand to left targets, right hand to right targets). In contrast to studies using one-handed reaches, a "contralateral effect" was observed in which distractors affording responses for the other hand caused more interference than distractors affording responses for the same hand. In Experiment 2 (a control study similar to Tipper et al., 1992), participants used their right hand to reach to all targets. Contrary to Experiment 1, a contralateral distractor interference effect was not observed. Together, the findings from the present research support the notion that attention is influenced by the actions being performed and, further, support Rosenbaum’s idea that the specification of the effector occurs earliest in motor planning. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2012
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 | 0.002 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".