Individual differences in electrophysiological responses to performance feedback predict AB magnitude
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The attentional blink (AB) is observed when report accuracy for a second target (T2) is reduced if T2 is presented within approximately 500 ms of a first target (T1), but is relatively unimpaired at longer T1-T2 separations. The AB is thought to represent a transient cost of attending to a target. There are reliable individual differences in AB magnitude. It has been suggested in some models of the AB that cognitive control contributes to the production of the AB, such that greater cognitive control is associated with larger AB magnitudes. Performance monitoring functions are thought to modulate the strength of cognitive control, and those functions are indexed by the event-related potentials in response to both endogenous and exogenous performance evaluation. Here we examine whether individual differences in the amplitudes to internal and external response feedback predict individual AB magnitudes. Electrophysiological responses to externally provided performance feedback, measured in two different tasks, predicted individual differences in AB magnitude such that greater feedback-related N2 amplitude was associated with larger AB magnitudes regardless of the valence of the feedback. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2013
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 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".