Sensitivity of a Voluntary Interruption of Occlusion Measure to Cognitive Distraction During a Pedal Tracking Task
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We conducted an experiment with 16 participants to investigate the effect of cognitive distraction on performance of a 1-D tracking task that simulated gap control in driving. Participants operated the tracking task with a foot pedal while performing a secondary task (an auditorily presented N-back task) under eight conditions involving all possible (2x2x2) combinations of degree of secondary task difficulty (1-back vs. 2-back), pedal tracking difficulty (hard vs. easy amounts of lag) and presence vs. absence of visual occlusion. In conditions involving occlusion participants could press a button to get rid of the occlusion for a short period of time, i.e., they used Voluntary Interruption of Occlusion (VIO). Our results showed that use of VIO is associated with updating ability and that it trades off against pedal tracking performance. We also found evidence that cognitive distraction due to the impact of updating requirements in the secondary N-Back task affects performance on the primary, pedal tracking, task.
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 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".