Effects of task context and fluctuations of attention on neural activity supporting performance of the Stroop task
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The influence of task context and transient fluctuations in attentional control on neural processes supporting performance of the Stroop task was investigated using event-related brain potentials. Task context was manipulated by varying the proportion of congruent and incongruent trials across different blocks of trials, and fluctuations of attentional control were considered by examining differences between trials eliciting faster and slower responses. The amplitudes of the N450, thought to reflect the suppression of a conceptual level processing system, and a temporo-parietal slow wave, thought to index the processing of color information, were greater when trials were mostly congruent in comparison to when trials were mostly incongruent. These findings indicate that the neural systems supporting inhibition and color processing are modulated by task demands. For the N450 the effect of task context interacted with the efficiency of attentional control being present for those trials eliciting faster responses and not for those trials eliciting slower responses. This finding is consistent with those from a growing number of studies indicating that the neural systems supporting attentional control are transient in nature, tending to fluctuate in efficiency over time.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".