When Age Is Irrelevant: Distractor Inhibition and Target Activation in Priming of Pop-Out
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Recent research suggests that inhibition at early stages of visual processing may be age invariant. We test this proposal using a priming of pop-out (PoP) measure developed by Lamy, Antebi, Aviani, and Carmel (2008. Priming of pop-out provides reliable measures of target activation and distractor inhibition in selective attention. Vision Research, 48, 30-41. doi:10.1016/j.visres.2007.10.009). In PoP, a unique item, which visually "pops-out" in a field of distractors, grabs our attention faster when its defining feature (e.g., color red) repeats across trials and slower when distractor- and target-defining features switch between trials. Here, we explore whether the processes underlying PoP, which prevent access to distractors and facilitate access to the singleton, remain intact with age. METHOD: Participants faced a display of circles and judged the direction of a letter T inscribed within a uniquely colored circle. RESULTS: All underlying components of PoP were present in older and younger adults. Participants revealed distractor inhibition by responding faster to a color singleton when the color of surrounding distractors repeated and slower when the singleton assumed the color of distractors from the previous trial. DISCUSSION: Our findings suggest that the inhibitory processes underlying PoP remain intact with age.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".