Reevaluating encoding-capacity limitations as a cause of the attentional blink.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A number of researchers have emphasized the role of distractors intervening between successive targets as the primary determinant of the attentional blink (AB) phenomenon. They argued that the AB is abolished when 3 or more targets are displayed as temporally contiguous items in rapidly presented serial sequences. In 3 experiments, the authors embedded 1-, 2-, or 3-digit targets among letter distractors in rapidly presented visual sequences. Across the experiments, both the number of targets and the lag between them were manipulated, producing different proportion of trials in which 3 temporally contiguous targets were presented in the test session. Evidence of an AB affecting the targets that followed the first target in these sequences was found in each experiment when the probability of a given target report was conditionalized on a correct response to the preceding targets, thus reinforcing the notion that some form of capacity limitation in the encoding of targets plays a central role in the elicitation and modulation of the AB effect.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".