Intramodal and crossmodal processing delays in the attentional blink paradigm revealed by event‐related potentials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the attentional blink (AB), processing of a second target (T2) is impaired if it is presented shortly after the onset of a first target (T1), leading to a decrease in accurate report of T2 if T2 is masked. Some prominent theories of the AB suggest that an amodal bottleneck in working memory consolidation underlies the AB. We investigated this by factorially manipulating T1 and T2 modalities (visual or auditory) using equivalent stimuli and tasks in both modalities to minimize task switching. T2 was not masked. In all modality combinations, the electrophysiological P3 component to T2, obtained by subtracting T1 only trials from T1+T2 trials, was delayed and reduced in amplitude when T2 was presented soon after T1 relative to when T1 and T2 were presented farther apart. Results provide support for a common amodal bottleneck that underlies the AB effects observed in all visual/auditory modality combinations.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".