Combined effects of feature-based working memory and feature-based attention on the perception of visual motion direction
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigated whether human subjects' ability to identify the direction of a brief pulse of coherent motion in a random-dot pattern (RDP) was influenced by: (a) maintaining in working memory the direction of motion of an RDP previously presented far from the pulse (feature-based working memory or FBWM, Experiment 1), (b) attending to the direction of an RDP co-occurring with but far from the pulse (feature-based attention or FBA, Experiment 2), and (c) both FBWM and FBA acting simultaneously (Experiment 3). In the first two experiments, pulse direction identification performance was higher when the remembered direction (FBWM) or the direction of the concurrently attended RDP (FBA) matched the pulse direction than when it was opposite. In Experiment 3, performance was highest when both the remembered and the attended directions matched the pulse direction (combined effects of FBWM and FBA), it was intermediate when only one of them matched the pulse direction, and it was lowest when neither matched the pulse direction. Our results demonstrate that both feature-based working memory and feature-based attention can individually modulate the perception of motion direction and that when acting together they produce an even larger modulation.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it