Global Interference: The Effect of Exposure Duration That is Substituted for Spatial Frequency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, participants were required to identify hierarchically structured patterns that appeared at either global or local level. Paquet and Merikle (1984 Canadian Journal of Psychology 381 45-53) showed that global interference is affected by exposure duration in the processing of a hierarchical structure. They showed that only global-to-local interference occurred at short exposure durations. In contrast, global-to-local as well as local-to-global interference was observed at long exposure durations. They suggested that the effect of exposure duration with global interference depends on the high-spatial-frequency versus low-spatial-frequency channel. In the present study, exposure duration (short or long) was varied randomly from trial to trial (experiment 1), or held constant (experiment 2). In experiment 1, global-to-local interference occurred at both short and long exposure durations, even though the same physical properties existed as in experiment 2. In experiment 2, both global-to-local and local-to-global interference occurred at only long exposure durations, in line with the results reported by Paquet and Merikle. This suggests that the effect of exposure duration on global interference is explained not only by spatial-frequency channels, but also by attentional shift.
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 | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".