MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Event-related potential evidence for attentional inhibition of return in audition

2003· article· en· W2089282117 on OpenAlexaff
David J. Prime, Matthew S. Tata, Lawrence M. Ward

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuroreport · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInhibition of returnEvent-related potentialPsychologyNeuroscienceMechanism (biology)Latency (audio)ElectrophysiologyNeural correlates of consciousnessPerceptionAuditory stimuliNeural activityAudiologyCognitionVisual attentionMedicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Orienting attention to a spatial location facilitates responding to a subsequent target at that location, but inhibits the response if attention is oriented away from that location before the target appears there. This inhibitory effect of attention re-orienting, called inhibition of return (IOR), occurs in vision, hearing, touch, and cross-modally, and has been well studied behaviorally. However, little is known about its underlying neural mechanism(s). We report a study of the neural mechanism of auditory IOR using event-related potentials (ERPs). Auditory IOR was associated with elimination, but not reversal, of the Nd1 difference wave. Previous research indicates that the Nd1 represents an enhanced neural response to attended sounds. Also, auditory IOR was associated with a delay in the latency of the peak of the N1 component of the ERP at parietal sites. These effects are consistent with the accounts if inhibition of attention return that have been proposed for IOR, but are somewhat different from effects found in analogous ERP studies of visual IOR.

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)0.002
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 score0.166
Threshold uncertainty score0.395

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.249 · 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

Citations11
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuroreportSame topicNeural dynamics and brain functionFrench-language works237,207