Higher levels of alpha event-related desynchronization are associated with the attentional blink
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accuracy at detecting or identifying a second target (T2) is reduced when it is presented within 500 ms of a first target (T1) in a rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP). This limitation of visual attention is referred to as an attentional blink (AB). Cognitive control models of the AB propose that the combination of limited attentional resources and inappropriate management of attention by top-down cognitive control underlie the AB. Reducing the amount of attentional investment with an additional task or instructing the use of a more relaxed cognitive approach have been found to reduce the magnitude of the AB. As well, personality and affective traits, as well as affective states, associated with a broader or more flexible cognitive approach have been found to predict smaller AB magnitudes. Previously, event-related desynchronization (ERD) in the alpha range has been used to measure attentional investment in anticipation of an imminent visual stimulus. In the current study alpha ERD was used to investigate whether the degree of attentional investment in anticipation of an RSVP trial was related to performance outcomes on the AB task. A sustained alpha ERD was observed during a 2-second foreperiod preceding the RSVP stream. As hypothesized, greater alpha ERD before the RSVP trial, indicating greater anticipatory attentional investment, was found on short lag trials where an AB was present (inaccurate T2 performance) compared to short lag trials where an AB did not occur. However, on trials where T2 was presented after a longer interval relative to T1, greater alpha ERD before the RSVP trial was found on trials with accurate T2 performance relative to trials where T2 was incorrect. Results support models of the AB that propose greater attentional investment underlies the AB, and furthermore that this attentional investment is prepared in anticipation of each RSVP trial.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".