MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2148868315 · doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00232

Reflexive Joint Attention Depends on Lateralized Cortical Connections

2000· article· en· W2148868315 on OpenAlexaff
Alan Kingstone, Chris Kelland Friesen, Michael S. Gazzaniga

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychological Science · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFace Recognition and Perception
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of British Columbia
FundersPontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador
KeywordsPsychologyGazeReflexivityJoint attentionCognitive psychologyNeuroimagingNeuroscienceDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Joint attention, the tendency to spontaneously direct attention to where someone else is looking, has been thought to occur because eye direction provides a reliable cue to the presence of important events in the environment. We have discovered, however, that adults will shift their attention to where a schematic face is looking--even when gaze direction does not predict any events in the environment. Research with 2 split-brain patients revealed that this reflexive joint attention is lateralized to a single hemisphere. Moreover, although this phenomenon could be inhibited by inversion of a face, eyes alone produced reflexive shifts of attention. Consistent with recent functional neuroimaging studies, these results suggest that lateralized cortical connections between (a) temporal lobe subsystems specialized for processing upright faces and gaze and (b) the parietal area specialized for orienting spatial attention underlie human reflexive shifts of attention in response to gaze direction.

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)0.002
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.171
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Citations222
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychological ScienceSame topicFace Recognition and PerceptionFrench-language works237,207