The interdependence of spatial attention and lexical access as revealed by early asymmetries in occipito‐parietal ERP activity
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
A test of the possible functional interaction between mechanisms subserving spatial attention and lexical access was devised by displaying one green and one red string of letters, one to the left and one to the right of fixation, and having participants attend to a target string defined by color while ignoring the other distractor string. The target string for a delayed lexical decision task could be a word or a nonword. The distractor was always a word. When the target was a word, target and distractor were associatively related on half of the trials and not related in the other trials. The event-related potential time-locked to the onset of the letter strings produced an N2pc (a greater negativity at scalp sites contralateral to the target relative to the ipsilateral sites arising at about 170 ms poststimulus). N2pc amplitude was reduced when the words were related relative to when they were not related. The results provide direct, online evidence that the rapid activation of meaning by visual words can influence the efficiency of the deployment of spatial attention.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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