MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2049243244 · doi:10.1080/13506280500296470

Symbolic- and response-related contributions to blindness to compatible stimuli

2006· article· en· W2049243244 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueVisual Cognition · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalUniversity of ReginaDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyBlindnessCognitive psychologyIdentification (biology)CommunicationAudiologyOptometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Blindness to compatible stimuli refers to poorer target identification (e.g., right-pointing arrowhead) following compatible stimuli (e.g., right arrows; Stevanovski, Oriet, & Jolicœur, 2003) and compatible responses (e.g., right key press; Müsseler & Hommel, 1997a and 1997b). To clarify the role of the response in this effect, we examined the impact of adding or removing an overt response. In three experiments, subjects saw an arrow cue (that sometimes required a response) followed by a brief, masked arrowhead, which was reported on all trials. In all experiments, making a response increased the magnitude of the blindness effect. Furthermore, “no response” performance was unaffected by whether subjects had previously responded to the cue. Results favour a two-factor symbolic- plus response-related activation model over a purely symbolic activation model.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.129
Threshold uncertainty score0.528

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.107
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.335 · 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