How implicit spatial cues affect attentional orienting: Timing is everything
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Concepts with implicit spatial meaning (e.g., "hat", "shoes", "attic", basement") can bias visual processing along the vertical spatial domain. While some studies show directional words interfere with visual processing at congruent locations, due to occupying the same spatial code (Estes, Verges, & Barsalou, 2008), other studies show that directional words facilitate visual processing at congruent locations, due to a spatial bias congruent with the word (Chasteen, Burdzy, & Pratt, 2010). We recently proposed a reconciliation, suggesting that interference and facilitation represent two temporal stages of the same type of processes (Gozli, Chasteen, & Pratt, in press). The present study further tests this proposal using a variant of the additional singleton paradigm (Theeuwes, 2010). Participants read two sequentially presented words (a context word, followed by a directional "cue" word) at the center of the display and then, after some delay, were presented with the search task. The search involved reporting the orientation of the line inside the shape singleton (square among circles) while ignoring the luminance singleton (brighter circle). When there was a short delay, directional words interfered with processing targets at the congruent location, suggesting that the spatial code implicit in the word becomes temporarily unavailable for concurrent visual processing. By contrast, when there was a long delay, directional words both facilitated processing of targets at the congruent location and increased the cost of an irrelevant salient distractor at that same location, suggesting a lingering spatial bias congruent with word meaning. These results support the role of spatial processing in conceptual understanding (Barsalou, 1999), while also revealing the important role of timing when examining the interaction between conceptual and perceptual tasks. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2014
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".