MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2135192317 · doi:10.1080/02643290600588095

Inhibition of return: Twenty years after

2006· article· en· W2135192317 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCognitive Neuropsychology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInhibition of returnPsychologyStimulus (psychology)NeuropsychologyCognitive psychologyCognitionPhenomenonNeuroscienceDevelopmental psychologyVisual attentionEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When responding to a suddenly appearing stimulus, we are slower and/or less accurate when the stimulus occurs at the same location of a previous event than when it appears in a new location. This phenomenon, often referred to as inhibition of return (IOR), has fostered a huge amount of research in the last 20 years. In this selective review, which introduces a Special Issue of Cognitive Neuropsychology dedicated to IOR, we discuss some of the methods used for eliciting IOR and its boundary conditions. We also address its debated relationships with orienting of attention, succinctly review findings of altered IOR in normal elderly and neuropsychiatric patients, and present results concerning its possible neural bases. We conclude with an outline of the papers collected in this issue, which offer a more in-depth treatment of behavioural, neural, and theoretical issues related to IOR.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.580
Threshold uncertainty score0.586

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.349
Teacher spread0.279 · 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