Influence of Endogenous and Exogenous Orientations of Attention on Inhibition of Return in a Cross-Modal Target—Target Aiming Task
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The authors conducted 2 experiments in which participants (N = 16 in each) executed successive unimanual aiming movements to target locations that were indicated by the onset of either an auditory or a visual stimulus. In Experiment 1 (exogenous orientation), inhibition of return (IOR) effects were observed, with reliable reaction time (RT) costs associated with movements returning to the same target and a trend toward larger IOR effects in left than in right space. There was no influence of stimulus modality on the magnitude of IOR. IOR was also observed in Experiment 2 (endogenous orientation), except the influence of stimulus modality reliably mediated those effect. In that case, IOR was evident only when the previous modality was visual and the current modality was auditory. Together, the results of those 2 experiments suggest that in situations in which 2 paired movements constitute the response criteria, IOR is both supramodal and lateralized to contralateral space.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".