MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159543989 · doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00367

Symbolic Control of Visual Attention

2001· article· en· W2159543989 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

VenuePsychological Science · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyInhibition of returnCognitive psychologyFacilitationTask (project management)Visual attentionFixation (population genetics)AutomaticityControl (management)Social psychologyPerceptionCognitionNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study reports four pairs of experiments that examined the role of nonpredictive (i.e., task-irrelevant) symbolic stimuli on attentional orienting. The experiments involved a simple detection task, an inhibition of return (IOR) task, and choice decision tasks both with and without attentional bias. Each pair of experiments included one experiment in which nonpredictive arrows were presented at the central fixation location and another experiment in which nonpredictive direction words (e.g., "up," "down," "left," "right") were presented. The nonpredictive symbolic stimuli affected responses in all experiments, with the words producing greater effects in the detection task and the arrows producing greater effects in the IOR and choice decision tasks. Overall, the present findings indicate that there is a strong connection between the overlearned representations of the meaning of communicative symbols and the reflexive orienting of visual attention.

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 score0.855
Threshold uncertainty score0.754

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
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 head0.174
GPT teacher head0.463
Teacher spread0.289 · 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