Tracking target and distractor processing in fixed-feature visual search: Evidence from human electrophysiology.
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
Salient distractors delay visual search for less salient targets in additional-singleton tasks, even when the features of the stimuli are fixed across trials. According to the salience-driven selection hypothesis, this delay is due to an initial attentional deployment to the distractor. Recent event-related potential (ERP) studies found no evidence for salience-driven selection in fixed-feature search, but the methods employed were not optimized to isolate distractor ERP components such as the N2pc and distractor positivity (PD; indices of selection and suppression, respectively). Here, we isolated target and distractor ERPs in two fixed-feature search experiments. Participants searched for a shape singleton in the presence of a more-salient color singleton (Experiment 1) or for a color singleton in the presence of a less-salient shape singleton (Experiment 2). The salient distractor did not elicit an N2pc, but it did elicit a PD on fast-response trials. Furthermore, distractors had no effect on the timing of the target N2pc. These results indicate that (a) the distractor was prevented from engaging the attentional mechanism associated with N2pc, (b) the distractor did not interrupt the deployment of attention to the target, and (c) competition for attention can be resolved by suppressing locations of irrelevant items on a salience-based priority map.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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