There’s little return for attentional momentum.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inhibition of return (IOR) refers to a delay in response time (RT) to targets appearing at a previously cued location. The prevailing view is that IOR reflects visual-motor inhibition. The "attentional momentum" account rejects this idea, and instead proposes that IOR reflects an automatic shift of attention away from the cued location resulting in slower RTs to targets presented there and speeded RTs to targets opposite the cue (an opposite facilitation effect or OFE). The drawback of this account is that J. J. Snyder, W. C. Schmidt, and A. Kingstone (2001) showed that there are few data to support the OFE, and no evidence that the OFE accounts for the IOR effect. Despite this evidence, several recent studies have promoted attentional momentum as a valid explanation for the IOR effect. Reanalysis of these recent studies and new data reveal, again, that IOR routinely occurs in the absence of the OFE, and when the OFE does occur, the IOR effect need not be present. This double dissociation invalidates attentional momentum as an explanation for the IOR effect. Extant data support an inhibitory explanation of the IOR effect.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".