Changing the focus of attention: The interacting effect of valence and arousal
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined how valence and arousal of an image influence visual attention. “Spotlight of attention” theory suggests that positive affect broadens, and negative affect narrows, one's aperture of attention, whereas the arousal theory literature suggests that arousal level is what modulates attentional focus, with highly arousing affect capturing attention, regardless of valence. In two experiments, a digit parity task was used to index the influence of valence, and arousal, on visual attention. Positive or negative images were displayed centrally on each trial, with single digits presented more peripherally (Experiment 1) or more centrally (Experiment 2) to the image. In both Experiments participants were slower, and less accurate at making parity decisions (e.g., both digits odd or both even) when the image was negative relative to positive, and of high arousal. For low arousal images, positive, relative to negative, valence images led to greater impairment of the digit parity task. Findings suggest that arousal level of images modulates the influence of valence on distribution of visual attention. Highly negative emotional images may command or capture attention, but there are other factors that can lead to attention capture, even in low arousing positive stimuli.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it