Evidence of a divided-attention advantage in autism
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
People with autism spectrum disorders appear to have some specific advantages in visual processing, including an advantage in visual search tasks. However, executive function theory predicts deficits in tasks that require divided attention, and there is evidence that people with autism have difficulty broadening their attention (Mann & Walker, 2003). We wanted to know how robust the known attentional advantage is. Would people with autism have difficulty dividing attention between central and peripheral tasks, as is required in the Useful Field of View task, or would they show an advantage due to strengths in visual search? Observers identified central letters and localized peripheral targets under both focused- and divided-attention conditions. Participants were 20 adults with high-functioning autism and Asperger's syndrome and 20 adults matched to the experimental group on education, age, and IQ. Contrary to some predictions, individuals with autism tended to show relatively smaller divided-attention costs than did matched adults. These results stand in stark contrast to the predictions of some prevalent theories of visual and cognitive processing in autism.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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