MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2084000898 · doi:10.1080/02643290903444582

Event-related potential evidence for a dual-locus model of global/local processing

2009· article· en· W2084000898 on OpenAlexafffund
Kirsten A. Dalrymple, Alan Kingstone, Todd C. Handy

Bibliographic record

VenueCognitive Neuropsychology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsSpinal Cord Injury BCUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of British Columbia Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPsychologyEvent-related potentialPerceptionCognitive psychologyCommunicationCognitionNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigated the perceptual time course of global/local processing using event-related potentials (ERPs). Participants discriminated the global or local level of hierarchical letters of different sizes and densities. Participants were faster to discriminate the local level of large/sparse letters and the global level of small/dense letters. This was mirrored in early ERP components: The N1/N2 had smaller peak amplitudes when participants made discriminations at the level that took precedence. Only global discriminations for large/sparse letters led to amplitude enhancement of the later P3 component, suggesting that additional attention-demanding processes are involved in discriminating the global level of these stimuli. Our findings suggest a dual-locus time course for global/local processing: (a) Level precedence occurs early in visual processing; (b) extra processing is required at a later stage, but only for global discriminations of large, sparse, stimuli, which may require additional attentional resources for active grouping.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.118
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.298 · 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

Citations9
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCognitive NeuropsychologySame topicVisual perception and processing mechanismsFrench-language works237,207