MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2051807264 · doi:10.1080/09541440440000069

Response selection influences inhibition of return

2004· article· en· W2051807264 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

VenueThe European Journal of Cognitive Psychology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInhibition of returnPsychologySelection (genetic algorithm)Response inhibitionPerceptionTask (project management)NeuroscienceCognitive psychologyCognitionVisual attentionArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previous work has suggested that there may be a relationship between the magnitude of inhibition of return (IOR) and the number of possible responses in the perceptual‐motor task. To test this possibility, the present experiment used a display that contained four horizontally aligned cue/target locations. In different blocks of trials, subjects responded to the target either with a one‐response detection key press, a two‐response localisation key press, or a four‐response localisation key press. The results showed the largest magnitude of IOR was found in the one‐response condition and the least in the four‐response condition. These results suggest that IOR may be most effective in inhibiting relatively prepotent responses and the inhibitory effect weakens when responses require more intricate sensorimotor mappings.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.294
Threshold uncertainty score0.294

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.128
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.268 · 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