Fixation and attention control in lateralised target detection and free recall with words
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the present study was to test the hypothesis that lateralised target detection in the visual modality would produce results similar in magnitude, reliability, and validity to those obtained in the auditory modality with an analogue task. Thus, it was expected that it would produce laterality effects that are larger, more reliable, and more valid than those obtained in a free recall task. The claim that target detection provides its own attention control also led to the hypothesis that the magnitude of laterality effects should be affected by fixation control in free recall but not target detection. A total of 349 right-handed participants completed a word recognition task with either free recall or target detection with or without fixation control. Only the finding that free recall was generally more reliable than target detection went contrary to the hypotheses. This finding is interpreted as reflecting a consistent attentional bias that stems from task requirements. In general, the results suggest that target detection without fixation control has much potential as a measure of perceptual asymmetries in the visual modality.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".