On the electrophysiological evidence for the capture of visual attention.
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
The presence of a salient distractor interferes with visual search. According to the salience-driven selection hypothesis, this interference is because of an initial deployment of attention to the distractor. Three event-related potential (ERP) findings have been regarded as evidence for this hypothesis: (a) salient distractors were found to elicit an ERP component called N2pc, which reflects attentional selection; (b) with target and distractor on opposite sides, a distractor N2pc was reported to precede the target N2pc (N2pc flip); (c) the distractor N2pc on slow-response trials was reported to occur particularly early, suggesting that the fastest shifts of attention were driven by salience. This evidence is equivocal, however, because the ERPs were noisy (b, c) and were averaged across all trials, thereby making it difficult to know whether attention was deployed directly to the target on some trials (a, b). We reevaluated this evidence using a larger sample size to reduce noise and by analyzing ERPs separately for fast- and slow-response trials. On fast-response trials, the distractor elicited a contralateral positivity (PD)-an index of attentional suppression-instead of an N2pc. There was no N2pc flip or early distractor N2pc. As it stands, then, there is no ERP evidence for the salience-driven selection hypothesis.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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