MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effect of cue–target interval on the N2pc

2006· article· en· W2085435390 on OpenAlexaff
Nicolas Robitaille, Pierre Jolicœur

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuroreport · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsN2pcPsychologyEvent-related potentialSelective attentionSelection (genetic algorithm)Visual searchNeuroscienceCognitive psychologyVisual attentionElectroencephalographyCognitionComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The N2pc component of the event-related potential occurs when participants must select and process a lateralized visual target, often in the presence of one or more distractors. The goal of this research was to determine whether the N2pc reflects unique processing related to the treatment of the target or whether it reflects processing related to the presence of a distractor. The selection cue for the target was presented 100 ms earlier, at the same time as, or 100 ms later than the target itself. An earlier cue allowed earlier spatial selection, leading to less interference from the distractor. The results indicated that the offset of the N2pc was delayed when more interference from the distractor was expected.

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 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 categoriesnone
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 score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.291

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations19
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuroreportSame topicNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesFrench-language works237,207