Constant and variable aspects of the dichotic listening right-ear advantage: A comparison of standard and signal detection tasks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study was designed to disentangle perceptual and attentional components of the dichotic listening right-ear advantage (REA). A total of 120 normal adults (108 right-handers and 12 left-handers) were administered the Halwes Fused Dichotic Words Test (FDWT) under standard conditions, which entail a forced-choice response format and no attention instructions. Two weeks later, the same stimuli were administered in a signal detection format with varied attention instructions (left, right, and equally divided). The standard task yielded the expected REA. The signal detection task yielded an REA for detection of targets that remained invariant across attention conditions. In contrast, ear asymmetry for localisation of targets varied with attention instructions. The REA on the standard task was correlated with the asymmetry of target detection (r = .57) on the signal detection task but not with the asymmetry of localisation or response bias. Ear asymmetry on the standard test seems to reflect an early stage of processing that is not altered by shifts of attention. Volitional shifts of attention influence the localisation of targets, but this component of signal processing is unrelated to the REA obtained on the standard test.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".