MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2155119650 · doi:10.1097/wnr.0b013e3282f0b559

Stimulus intensity affects the latency but not the amplitude of the N2pc

2007· article· en· W2155119650 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuroreport · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsStimulus (psychology)NeurosciencePsychologyAudiologyMedicineCognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The N2pc component of the event-related potential (ERP) is an index of visual-spatial attention. It is not clear whether the N2pc reflects pure top-down attentional activity or an interaction of top-down activity with bottom-up sensory activity. Here, we manipulated stimulus intensity of the items composing the target display. Although the amplitude of the P1 component increased monotonically with increasing stimulus intensity, the amplitude of the N2pc did not vary with stimulus intensity. Instead, the onset latency of the N2pc was delayed for weaker stimuli, suggesting that the strength of the selection cue (target color) influenced the moment at which attention was deployed. The results reveal one way in which early sensory ERP amplitude differences are converted into later latency differences.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.600
Threshold uncertainty score0.285

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.230 · 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