Visual search is postponed during the attentional blink until the system is suitably reconfigured.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
J. S. Joseph, M. M. Chun, and K. Nakayama (1997) found that pop-out visual search was impaired as a function of intertarget lag in an attentional blink (AB) paradigm in which the 1st target was a letter and the 2nd target was a search display. In 4 experiments, the present authors tested the implication that search efficiency should be similarly impaired (steeper search slopes at shorter lags). A conventional AB deficit was found, but, contrary to expectations, search slopes were invariant with lag. These results suggest that no search can be carried out during the period of the AB. Instead, the search is postponed until after the 1st target has been processed. The authors conclude that efficient visual search cannot be carried out unless the visual system is configured appropriately for the search task. If the initial configuration is inappropriate, processing of the 2nd target is held in abeyance until the system has been suitably reconfigured.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".