MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2050891322 · doi:10.1037/a0021924

On the labile memory buffer in the attentional blink: Masking the T2 representation by onset transients mediates the AB.

2011· article· en· W2050891322 on OpenAlexafffund
Ali Jannati, Thomas M. Spalek, Vincent Di Lollo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular Surface and Contact Lens
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAttentional blinkVisual maskingMasking (illustration)Backward maskingStimulus onset asynchronyPsychologyRepresentation (politics)Rapid serial visual presentationComputer scienceChemistryNeuroscienceVisual perceptionCognitionPerception

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Report of a second target (T2) is impaired when presented within 500 ms of the first (T1). This attentional blink (AB) is known to cause a delay in T2 processing during which T2 must be stored in a labile memory buffer. We explored the buffer's characteristics using different types of masks after T2. These characteristics were inferred by determining what attributes of T2 are hindered by a given form of masking. In Experiments 1-3, trailing metacontrast and four-dot masks produced ABs of equal magnitudes, implicating the onset-transient triggered by the mask as the mechanism underlying the AB and strongly suggesting a locus in early vision. In Experiment 4, metacontrast and four-dot masks were presented in a common-onset masking (COM) paradigm in which a brief, combined display of T2 and the mask was followed by a longer display of the mask alone. COM is thought to occur late in the sequence of processing events. No AB occurred with COM, confirming the critical role of the mask's onset transients and ruling out a high-level locus for the labile memory buffer.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.676
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.292 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & PerformanceSame topicOcular Surface and Contact LensFrench-language works237,207