Visual search selectively enhances recognition of the search target
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
Abstract In Experiment 1, subjects performed a probe recognition task embedded within a task in which they searched for a single target letter (either a T or an L) in a field of distractor letters (Ls or Ts, respectively). Pairs of targets were more often correctly recognized as identical than were pairs of distractors. Also, pairs of items consisting of a distractor and a hybrid composed of a T and an L were correctly recognized as different more often than were pairs of items consisting of a target and a hybrid. This result would be expected if subjects were more likely to interpret a hybrid as the target. In Experiment 2, subjects performed the same search task used previously, but now the probe task involved recognition of either a single target, a single distractor, or a single hybrid. A probe L was recognized better when it served as the target than when it served as the distractor in the concurrent search task. The hybrid was more likely to be incorrectly identified as the letter that served as the target. These results are consistent with models which assume that search instructions activate in a top-down manner the central representation of the search target, even in the absence of target stimuli. This interpretation is supported by the finding that neurons that code objects in higher-order cortical visual areas show enhanced activity when monkeys are preparing to search for the object that they code, even when it is not present.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it