MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2075101754 · doi:10.1167/5.8.391

Spatial attentional cuing effects on emotional evaluation of faces

2010· article· en· W2075101754 on OpenAlexaff
Helena J. V. Rutherford, Brian A. Goolsby, Jane E. Raymond, R. M. Klein

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStimulus onset asynchronyPsychologyFixation (population genetics)Stimulus (psychology)Cognitive psychologyTrustworthinessInhibition of returnVisual searchFacial expressionPerceptionSocial psychologyCommunicationVisual attentionNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Faces seen as distractors in visual search arrays are subsequently rated as less trustworthy than faces previously seen as search targets (Raymond, et al., 2004, VSS). Similarly, task-irrelevant faces associated with no-go cues in a simple reaction time task are seen as less trustworthy than faces not so associated (Fenske, et al. 2003, VSS). A possible mechanism for this attentional control over emotional evaluation may be a persistent effect of attentional inhibition. Here we ask whether brief spatial cues presented to the left or right of a fixation spot just prior to the presentation of a target face (presented to the left or right) would modulate the social-emotional evaluation of the face. After viewing a simple cue, participants categorized the gender of the face as quickly as possible and then rated the face for its trustworthiness. The stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) between cue and target face was varied; cues were presented at a location that was the same as (valid) or opposite to (invalid) that of the target. For faces presented on the left, gender categorisation response times (RT) were faster with valid v. invalid cues for all SOAs. For faces seen on the right, this cuing benefit was only seen for short SOAs. For long SOAs, RT was faster with invalid cues, indicating inhibition of return (IOR). Trustworthy ratings of faces presented on the left were unaffected by cues for any SOA. Similarly, for faces presented on the right, cues had no effect on ratings for short SOAs. However, for long SOAs (producing IOR), validly cued faces were rated as significantly less trustworthy than invalidly cued faces. These results indicate that the inhibitory processes underlying IOR have consequences for the social-emotional evaluation of stimuli and are therefore consistent with previous accounts that persistent attentional inhibition can modulate affective responses. These data also suggest that attentional facilitation has no impact on affective appraisal.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.128
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.314 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Vision→Same topicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies→French-language works237,207→