A new test of habituation as an account of inhibition of return in spatial attention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Animals reflexively orient toward unexpected events. If these events are repeated without consequence, there is a decrement in orienting called habituation. It has been proposed that one aspect of human spatial attention, inhibition of return (IOR), is best understood as an instance of habituation (Dukewich, 2009; Huber, 2008). Consistent with this account, increasing the number of non-predictive cues, and increasing their rate, both lead to greater IOR (Dukewich & Boehnke, 2008). This study examines an untested premise of the habituation account of IOR, namely, that attentional orienting is necessary for habituation to occur in the first place. If habituation only occurs to attended events, it should be reduced when cues hold less information with respect to the primary task of target identification. We manipulated cue information by varying temporal predictability. In a fixed-cue condition, either 1, 3, or 5 non-predictive spatial cues were presented at one of three rates of presentation, leading to a pattern of results consistent with the known characteristics of habituation. A jittered-cue condition was identical, except that a time jitter of ± 100 ms was added to the rate of presentation, making the event sequence within a trial less predictable. Although participants in both conditions showed increased IOR as the time between the first cue and the target was increased, cue number had an influence in the fixed, but not in the jittered, condition. In addition, this difference was largest in the fastest rate of presentation, where the added jitter had the greatest effect on event predictability. These results establish the importance of initial orienting for habituation to occur in a spatial attention task. Temporal uncertainty among the cues and targets reduces orienting to individual cues, thuspreventing the buildup in habituation otherwise associated with successive, predictable, cues.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".