MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2039492612 · doi:10.1167/10.7.709

Working memory, feature-based attention, and their interaction modulate the perception of motion direction in human observers

2010· article· en· W2039492612 on OpenAlexaff
D. Mendoza, Megan Schneiderman, Julio Martínez-Trujillo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStimulus (psychology)PsychologyAudiologyPerceptionPulse (music)Feature (linguistics)Working memoryCommunicationCognitive psychologyCognitionOpticsPhysicsMedicineNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Attending to a visual stimulus feature modulates the perception of that feature. Here, we used moving stimuli to investigate whether maintaining the representation of a visual feature in working memory (WM) produces a similar effect, and whether such effect interacts with the effect of feature-based attention (FBA). Seven subjects identified the direction of a brief pulse of coherent motion occurring in a 0% coherence random dot pattern (RDP). Concurrently, they performed a second task consisting of either a) attending to four sequentially presented moving RDPs and detecting whether they changed direction (Experiment 1), or b) remembering the direction of a moving RDP (sample) and, after a delay, determining how many of four sequentially presented RDPs (tests) matched the sample's direction (Experiments 2&3). In Experiment 1, the pulse co-occurred with one test, while subjects attended to it. In Experiment 2, the pulse occurred during an inter-test interval, while subjects remembered the sample. In Experiment 3, the pulse co-occurred with one of the tests, while subjects remembered the sample and attended to the test. Pulse identification performance was significantly higher when the pulse direction was the same as the concurrently attended RDP (FBA, Experiment 1) or the remembered sample (WM, Experiment 2), than when it was opposite. In Experiment 3, performance was highest when both the remembered sample and the attended test directions (WM+FBA) were the same as the pulse direction, intermediate when one was the same and the other opposite, and lowest when both were opposite. When subjects performed the pulse identification task but ignored the sample and tests, performance was unaffected by the sample and test directions, demonstrating that mere exposure to these stimuli did not influence pulse identification. Our results show that WM and FBA can individually and simultaneously modulate the perception of motion direction in human subjects.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of VisionSame topicVisual perception and processing mechanismsFrench-language works237,207