Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present experiment investigated the reliability and magnitude of laterality effects in a non-verbal task in the visual modality. The use of a bilateral discrimination task in which participants indicated whether a centrally presented probe stimulus matched either of the bilaterally presented targets was presumed to provide control over attention deployment. This led to the prediction that a reliable left visual field advantage (LVFA) would be obtained. A total of 40 right-handed undergraduate students completed the bilateral discrimination task twice in a test-retest design. Although relatively large test-retest correlations suggested that the laterality effect was quite reliable, a significant LVFA was obtained in the first testing session, and a right visual field advantage in the second one. This finding parallels results obtained in previous work with non-verbal tasks and supports the notion that practice affects the direction of laterality effects. The discussion examines alternative explanations with emphasis on practice effects and possible attentional factors. A possible shift in the bivariate distribution of laterality scores is used as a tentative explanation of the apparent contradiction between the high test-retest reliability and the shift in laterality with practice.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".