Tracking the Location of Visuospatial Attention in a Contingent Capture Paradigm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Currently, there is considerable controversy regarding the degree to which top-down control can affect attentional capture by salient events. According to the contingent capture hypothesis, attentional capture by a salient stimulus is contingent on a match between the properties of the stimulus and top-down attentional control settings. In contrast, bottom-up saliency accounts argue that the initial capture of attention is determined solely by the relative salience of the stimulus, and the effect of top-down attentional control is limited to effects on the duration of attentional engagement on the capturing stimulus. In the present study, we tested these competing accounts by utilizing the N2pc event-related potential component to track the locus of attention during an attentional capture task. The results were completely consistent with the contingent capture hypothesis: An N2pc wave was elicited only by distractors that possessed the target-defining attribute. In a second experiment, we expanded upon this finding by exploring the effect of target-distractor similarity on the duration that attention dwells at the distractor location. In this experiment, only distractors possessing the target-defining attribute (color) captured visuospatial attention to their location and the N2pc increased in duration and in magnitude when the capture distractor also shared a second target attribute (category membership). Finally, in three additional control experiments, we replicated the finding of an N2pc generated by distractors, only if they shared the target-defining attribute. Thus, our results demonstrate that attentional control settings influence both which stimuli attract attention and to what extent they are processed.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".