MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018213637 · doi:10.1068/p3089

The Role of Attention in Temporal Integration

2001· article· en· W2018213637 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePerception · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerceptStimulus (psychology)Cognitive psychologyPsychologyVisual maskingVisual attentionAttentional blinkVisual perceptionStimulus onset asynchronyPerceptionNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When two visual patterns are presented in rapid succession, their contours may be combined into a single unified percept. This temporal integration is known to be influenced by such low-level visual factors as stimulus intensity, contour proximity, and stimulus duration. In this study we asked whether temporal integration is modulated by an attentional-blink procedure. The results from a localisation task in experiment 1 and a detection task in experiment 2 pointed to two separate effects. First, greater attentional availability increased the accuracy of spatial localisation. Second, it increased the duration over which successive stimuli could be integrated. These results imply that theories of visible persistence and visual masking must account for attentional influences in addition to lower-level effects. They also have practical implications for use of the temporal-integration task in the assessment of group and individual differences.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.616
Threshold uncertainty score0.199

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.280 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it