Using Auditory and Visual Stimuli to Investigate the Behavioral and Neuronal Consequences of Reflexive Covert Orienting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reflexively orienting toward a peripheral cue can influence subsequent responses to a target, depending on when and where the cue and target appear relative to each other. At short delays between the cue and target [cue-target onset asynchrony (CTOA)], subjects are faster to respond when they appear at the same location, an effect referred to as reflexive attentional capture. At longer CTOAs, subjects are slower to respond when the two appear at the same location, an effect referred to as inhibition of return (IOR). Recent evidence suggests that these phenomena originate from sensory interactions between the cue- and target-related responses. The capture of attention originates from a strong target-related response, derived from the overlap of the cue- and target-related activities, whereas IOR corresponds to a weaker target-aligned response. If such interactions are responsible, then modifying their nature should impact the neuronal and behavioral outcome. Monkeys performed a cue-target saccade task featuring visual and auditory cues while neural activity was recorded from the superior colliculus (SC). Compared with visual stimuli, auditory responses are weaker and occur earlier, thereby decreasing the likelihood of interactions between these signals. Similar to previous studies, visual stimuli evoked reflexive attentional capture at a short CTOA (60 ms) and IOR at longer CTOAs (160 and 610 ms) with corresponding changes in the target-aligned activity in the SC. Auditory cues used in this study failed to elicit either a behavioral effect or modification of SC activity at any CTOA, supporting the hypothesis that reflexive orienting is mediated by sensory interactions between the cue and target stimuli.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".