Effect of feature and response conflicts on the spatial allocation of attention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous research has suggested that attention is inhibited from returning to previously attended locations, and that this inhibition of return (IOR) lasts approximately two to three seconds. However, Tipper, Grison, and Kessler (2003) showed that this inhibition can last for much longer durations so long as the cue is encoded in a context-rich event. Using a target-target procedure, Wilson, Castel, and Pratt (2006) extended this work and proposed that IOR, at both standard (i.e. typical time range) and long durations, resulted from a conflict in memory retrieval of the previous response and the current response. However, Wilson et al. only examined situations in which the response change was from withholding a response to production of a response. The question remains, then, whether suppression of a response to the previous target is necessary or whether a change in the type of response (e.g., from a left-hand to a right-hand response) would be sufficient to produce IOR. To examine this possibility, we used standard (1500 ms) and long stimulus onset asynchronies (~10,500 ms SOA) and manipulated the congruency of both the colour of and the response required for the previous and current target. In support of the memory retrieval account, significant IOR was found at the short SOA only when there was a change in motor response, but not a change in the colour feature, suggesting that a change in motor response is sufficient to cause IOR. However, there were two unexpected results: (1) no IOR was found at the long SOA when the response changed, and (2) for both standard and long SOAs, there was significant facilitation when participants were required to make the same response to both the previous and the current target. Overall, these results support that proposal that memory for a conflicting response underlies IOR.
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 | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".