The role of the gap effect in the orienting of attention: Evidence for express attentional shifts
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
The “gap effect” refers to the finding that saccadic latencies are typically reduced when the fixation point is removed just prior to the presentation of a target. One explanation for this effect is that the removal of the fixation point causes the disengagement of covert attention and allows for extremely rapid movements of attention (express attentional shifts). However, previous research regarding express attentional shifts has yielded equivocal results. The present study used a variation of a peripheral cueing paradigm with a discrimination task (Experiment 1) and a detection task (Experiment 2) to further examine this issue. The results from eye movement and keypress latencies indicated that there were express attentional shifts with the discrimination task but not in the detection task. This pattern of results may have been due to differences in how attention was allocated between the two tasks. Thus, evidence for express attentional shifts was found, but only under certain conditions.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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