Attention, reliability, and validity of perceptual asymmetries in the fused dichotic words test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present experiment investigated the claim that the fused dichotic words test (FDWT) is affected minimally by attentional factors. A total of 40 right-handed undergraduate students were randomly assigned to either a free recall or exogenous cueing condition. In the free recall condition, participants circled on a response sheet the word corresponding to the percept they heard for each trial. In the exogenous cueing condition, a lateralised tone cue was presented with a stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) of either 150 or 450 ms. Participants responded by circling the word presented to the ear where the tone sounded. Results of the free recall condition showed the expected large right ear advantage (REA). In the exogenous cueing condition, the significant SOA by ear of presentation interaction predicted by an attentional explanation of perceptual asymmetries was obtained. Specifically, the REA obtained at the 150 ms SOA was reduced at the 450 ms SOA for both correct responses and intrusions. These findings suggest that, contrary to claims conveyed in the literature, the FDWT is subject to the influences of attention. This supports the claim that the large and reliable laterality effects obtained with the fused dichotic words test are due in part to a consistent attentional bias.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".