Social and temporal orienting: Linked or independent?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spatial and temporal orienting are thought to constitute independent, parallel processes (e.g., Nobre, 2001). However, less is known about the relationship between social orienting, i.e., shifts of attention elicited by gaze direction to a particular location in space, and temporal orienting, i.e., shifts of attention elicited to particular moments in time. Namely, it is possible that temporal expectancy about when a target will occur might modulate spatial orienting elicited by a social gaze cue, thus questioning the proposed automaticity of social attention. To address this question, we presented participants with spatially uninformative gaze direction and temporally informative non-spatial cues, both in isolation and in conjunction, within the same task. Additionally, to determine whether the overall tonic alertness level of participants influenced either social or temporal orienting, half of all participants were assigned to the high alertness condition, where a response target was present on the majority of trials, while the other half were assigned to the low alertness condition, where a response target was present on fewer trials. Social orienting was resilient across all manipulations, emerging in its typical form regardless of whether gaze cues were presented in isolation, in competition with temporal cues or under changing levels of alertness. Temporal orienting proceeded in parallel with social orienting; however its effects emerged only when alertness was low. These data suggest that social and temporal orienting draw on different underlying attentional mechanisms. Social orienting appears to involve automatic processes while temporal orienting and alertness depend on executive, top-down processes. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2013
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".