Native Reading Direction and Corresponding Preferences for Left- or Right-Lit Images
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
The first language an individual learns has been shown to influence performance on cognitive tasks. Individuals who first learn to read and write in a left-to-right direction (native left-to-right readers) tend to bisect lines left of centre and draw counterclockwise circles, whereas those who learn to read and write from right-to-left (native right-to-left readers) will bisect lines closer to the objective centre and draw circles in a clockwise direction. The aim of the current study was to assess group differences in image preferences and eye movements when participants are simultaneously presented with an original and mirror image with an obvious illumination difference. Twenty native left-to-right readers (4 men, 16 women) and 25 native right-to-left readers (13 men, 12 women) participated. Left-to-right readers made more fixations on the left side of images and exhibited a significantly different left-lit image bias than right-to-left readers' choices. These results draw attention to the influence that reading direction has on scanning distributions and lighting preferences, and question previous results finding no difference between groups.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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