MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A psychological refractory period in access to visual short‐term memory and the deployment of visual–spatial attention: Multitasking processing deficits revealed by event‐related potentials

2007· article· en· W2123047966 on OpenAlexaff
Benoît Brisson, Pierre Jolicœur

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychophysiology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsN2pcStimulus onset asynchronyPsychologyVisual spatial attentionStimulus (psychology)Event-related potentialP200Latency (audio)AudiologyVisual memoryNeuroscienceVisual attentionCognitive psychologyVisual perceptionCognitionComputer sciencePerception

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this psychological refractory period (PRP) experiment, a tone (T1) was presented, followed by a visual target (T2) embedded in a bilateral display, and a speeded response was required for each target. The T1-T2 stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) was 300, 650, or 1000 ms. Mean response time to T2 increased as SOA was reduced, replicating the well-known PRP effect. Importantly, the N2pc component of the event-related potential was progressively attenuated as SOA was reduced, and the onset latency of the sustained posterior contralateral negativity (SPCN) that follows the N2pc was progressively lengthened. Conditional analysis based on Task1 difficulty corroborated the analyses based on effects of SOA. The results suggest that central processing leading to the PRP effect interferes with the deployment of visual-spatial attention (as indexed by the N2pc) and delays encoding into visual short-term memory (as indexed by the SPCN onset latency).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.070
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.358 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations104
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychophysiologySame topicNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesFrench-language works237,207