Electrophysiological evidence of visual encoding deficits in a cross‐modal attentional blink paradigm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two experiments are reported in which two target stimuli, T1 and T2, were presented at variable stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs). In Experiment 1, T1 and T2 were visual stimuli embedded in a rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) stream of distractors. Participants were asked to report T1 and T2 at the end of the stream. In Experiment 2, T1 was an auditory stimulus, and T2 a visual stimulus embedded in an RSVP stream. Participants made a speeded discriminative response to T1, and reported T2 at the end of the stream. An attentional blink (AB) effect was observed in both experiments: T2 report suffered at short SOA compared to long SOA. During the AB, the amplitude of the P300 component of the event-related potential (ERP) locked to T2 onset was sensibly reduced in both experiments. Behavioral and ERP results were very similar across the two experiments. Implications for models of the AB effect are discussed.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".