MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2019400073 · doi:10.1167/10.2.14

Capacity limits during perceptual encoding

2010· article· en· W2019400073 on OpenAlexaff
Greg L. West

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSalience (neuroscience)SalientStimulus (psychology)PerceptionPsychologyVisual perceptionCognitive psychologyChange detectionPsychometric functionVisual processingComputer scienceCommunicationArtificial intelligencePsychophysicsNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When a unique stimulus is embedded in an otherwise homogenous display, it is thought to "pop-out" due to its relative increase in salience. We investigated whether the visual system has the ability to equally prioritize multiple salient pop-out items competing for awareness or whether this early stage of visual processing is constrained by capacity limits. We used signal detection (d') methods to determine if sensitivity to a salient pop-out item decreases as function of the number of total salient items present in the visual display. Participants engaged in a signal detection task where they had to report the presence or absence of a simple display change that involved either a pop-out or a non-salient distractor stimulus. Results across four experiments consistently showed that sensitivity to changes involving pop-out stimuli was significantly reduced after more than one of these items was present in the visual array. Results are discussed in terms of neural models of visual encoding and other known capacity limits during visual processing.

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 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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.252
Threshold uncertainty score0.234

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.151
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of VisionSame topicNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesFrench-language works237,207