Correlates of Capture of Attention and Inhibition of Return across Stages of Visual Processing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How do visual signals evolve from early to late stages in sensory processing? We explored this question by examining two neural correlates of spatial attention. The capture of attention and inhibition of return refer to the initial advantage and subsequent disadvantage to respond to a visual target that follows an irrelevant visual cue at the same location. In the intermediate layers of the superior colliculus (a region that receives input from late stages in visual processing), both behavioral effects link to changes in the neural representation of the target: strong target-related activity correlates with the capture of attention and weak target-related activity correlates with inhibition of return. Contrasting these correlates with those obtained in the superficial layers (a functionally distinct region that receives input from early stages in visual processing), we show that the target-related activity of neurons in the intermediate layers was the best predictor of orienting behavior, although dramatic changes in the target-related response were observed in both subregions. We describe the important consequences of these findings for understanding the neural basis of the capture of attention and inhibition of return and interpreting changes in neural activity more generally.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".