When distractors and to-be-remembered items compete for the control of action: A new perspective on serial memory for spatial information.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In serial memory for spatial information, performance is impaired when distractors are interpolated between to-be-remembered (TBR) stimuli (Tremblay, Nicholls, Parmentier, & Jones, 2005). The so-called sandwich effect, combined with the use of eye tracking, served as a tool for examining the role of the oculomotor system in serial memory for spatial information. Participants had to recall the order in which sequences of TBR locations were presented. In some trials, to-be-ignored blue dots were presented after each TBR location. Our results show that response locations shift toward the location of the distractors, and this deviation is related to the eye movement deviation toward the distractor location. These results suggest that TBR and to-be-ignored locations are encoded onto a common map that could lie within the oculomotor system. Interference in memory for spatial information is interpreted in light of a model of oculomotor behavior (Godijn & Theeuwes, 2002b).
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".