MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Attentional capture by visual singletons is mediated by top‐down task set: New evidence from the N2pc component

2008· article· en· W1995913285 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychophysiology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilDirectorate for Biological SciencesWellcome Trust
KeywordsN2pcVisual searchPsychologySingletonStimulus (psychology)SalientCognitive psychologyTask (project management)Set (abstract data type)Top-down and bottom-up designVisual attentionCommunicationCognitionNeuroscienceArtificial intelligenceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To investigate whether attentional capture by salient visual stimuli is mediated by current task sets, we measured the N2pc component as a marker of the spatial locus of visual attention during visual search. In each trial, a singleton stimulus that could either be a target (color task: red circle; shape task: green diamond) or a nontarget (blue circle or green square) was presented among uniform distractors (green circles). As predicted by the view that attentional capture is contingent on task set, the N2pc was strongly affected by task instructions. It was maximal for targets, attenuated but still reliably present for nontarget singletons defined in the target dimension (even when these were accompanied by an irrelevant-dimension singleton), and small or absent for equally salient irrelevant-dimension singletons. Results demonstrate that attentional capture is not a purely bottom-up phenomenon, but is strongly determined by top-down task set.

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 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 score0.275
Threshold uncertainty score0.983

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.127
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.239 · 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