MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1994370173 · doi:10.1080/17470210903080711

Magnitude of negative priming varies with conceptual task difficulty: Attentional resources are involved in episodic retrieval processes

2009· article· en· W1994370173 on OpenAlexaff
Ulrich von Hecker, Michael Conway

Bibliographic record

VenueQuarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrime (order theory)Priming (agriculture)PsychologyPerspective (graphical)Negative primingTask (project management)Cognitive psychologyResponse primingMechanism (biology)Computer scienceCognitionArtificial intelligenceMathematicsSelective attentionNeuroscienceLexical decision taskBiologyCombinatoricsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a variant of the negative priming (NP) procedure, the larger of two presented animals is to be named in each trial. Eight animals of different sizes are used, which allows a manipulation of conceptual task difficulty in terms of pair distance (difficult: one step, versus easy: three steps) on the series. Distances are varied for prime pairs and probe pairs orthogonally. NP effects were found for easy (wide) probe distances (Experiments 1 and 2) and, additionally, for easy (wide) prime distances (Experiment 2). This pattern is interpreted in terms of different theories of NP, which emphasize either forward-acting (prime to probe) or backward-acting (probe to prime) processes. The present results are most compatible with a backward-acting mechanism defined by the episodic retrieval perspective; they are less compatible with a forward-acting inhibition perspective. The results have implications for resource requirements of retrieval-based accounts of NP.

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)0.000
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 score0.281
Threshold uncertainty score0.755

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.282 · 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

Citations3
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQuarterly Journal of Experimental PsychologySame topicNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesFrench-language works237,207