Isolating exogenous and endogenous modes of temporal 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 differential allocation of information processing resources over time, here termed "temporal attention," may be achieved by relatively automatic "exogenous" or controlled "endogenous" mechanisms. Over 100 years of research has confounded these theoretically distinct dimensions of temporal attention. The current report seeks to ameliorate this oversight by novel application of 2 experimental methodologies. A scheme imported from the animal learning literature (Rescorla's "truly random control" procedure) was used to eliminate any temporal contingency between signals and targets. An auditory stimulus imported from the psychophysical literature (correlated vs. uncorrelated noise) was used to provide a salient signal that entailed no local or global change in intensity. Purely endogenous temporal attention (generated by a reliable signal-target contingency in the absence of a change in intensity) is characterized by robust improvements in speed and accuracy of responding. Purely exogenous temporal attention (generated by an intensity increase in the absence of contingency) is characterized by a brief period of faster responding. When exogenous temporal attention is elicited in the context of endogenous temporal attention, the decrease in response time that follows an intense signal is accompanied by a decrease in response accuracy.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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