Attentional inhibition has affective consequences for visual stimuli represented in short- and long-term memory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ratings of previously ignored visual stimuli reveal affective devaluation of such items when compared to ratings of novel items or the targets of attention. Growing evidence suggests this effect may reflect negative affective associations elicited by attentional inhibition of visual distractors. Here we investigate whether such 'inhibitory devaluation' is limited to situations involving visual-spatial selection of environmental stimuli (i.e., external attention) or extends to the selection of competing visual representations held solely in memory (i.e., internal attention). A two-item target-localization task in Experiment 1 utilized a delayed target-category cue ('circles' or 'squares') to ensure attentional selection occurred from the contents of working memory. An n-back task in Experiment 2 was used to examine the affective consequences of rejecting continually-updated visual representations when items held in memory did not match the corresponding visual display. And a Think/No-think paradigm employed in Experiment 3 was designed to explore the affective consequences of actively suppressing longer-term visual object memories. Across this relatively-wide range of memory-based selection tasks, the ignored/rejected/suppressed visual patterns consistently received more negative affective ratings than target items. Our results are consistent with prior suggestions that similar mechanisms are involved in the attentional selection of environmental stimuli and the selection of internally-maintained information that occurs even in the absence of external sensory stimulation. The similarity in these mechanisms appears to extend not only to processes of attentional selection, per se, but also to their affective consequences. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2014
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".