MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2066047563 · doi:10.1037/h0087350

Negative priming for spatial location?

2001· article· en· W2066047563 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNegative primingPriming (agriculture)PsychologyInhibition of returnResponse primingCognitive psychologyPrime (order theory)Task (project management)PerceptionNeuroscienceCognitionSelective attentionVisual attentionLexical decision taskBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The term negative priming has been used to describe the deleterious consequences for performance when the current target shares properties with an ignored distractor from the previous trial. Location-based negative priming was first reported by Tipper, Brehaut, and Driver (1990) who used a prime-probe procedure wherein the task was to localize targets defined by their identity (shape). Design imbalances in this seminal study, and others, are illustrated and it is indicated how these might have contaminated the reported effects. The findings, from three experiments using an unbiased design, suggest that negative priming in the spatial location procedure may be more closely related to inhibition of return (IOR), or to the automatic attraction of attention by new objects, than to the concepts of distractor inhibition, episodic retrieval, and feature mismatch, which have traditionally been used to explain negative priming for spatial location.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.170
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.223 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it