Attentional control settings prevent abrupt onsets from capturing visual spatial attention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When a visual distractor appears earlier than a visual target in a target-detection task, response time is faster if the distractor appears at the same location as the target. When a visual distractor appears concurrently with a visual target in a target-detection task, response time is slowed relative to when no distractor is presented. Both effects have been taken as evidence of the capture of visual spatial attention, yet capture by early distractors is contingent on top-down attentional control settings (ACSs), and capture by concurrent distractors is not. The present study evaluated whether this incongruity is attributable to the timing of distractors (earlier than vs. concurrently with the target), or to the employed comparisons (same location/different location vs. distractor/no distractor). Using a task that presented both early and concurrent distractors, we observed that, regardless of timing, capture was contingent on ACSs when assessed by the same-location/different-location comparison. This result suggests that, although irrelevant stimuli cause nonspatial purely stimulus-driven effects, the capture of visual spatial attention is contingent on ACSs.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".