A Direct Assessment of the Role of Expectation in Inhibition of Return
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An object hidden among distractors can be found more efficiently if previously searched locations are not reinspected. The inhibition-of-return (IOR) phenomenon indexes the tendency to avoid reinspections. Two accounts of IOR, that it is due to inhibition and that it is due to expectation, are generally regarded as incompatible. The relevant evidence to date, however, has been indirect: Inhibition or expectation has been inferred from response times or similar indirect measures. This article reports the first direct measure of IOR, obtained by asking observers to predict the location of the next target in a display containing eight possible locations on an imaginary circle. On any given trial, the previously cued location was chosen less frequently (impairment)--and the opposite location was chosen more frequently (facilitation)--than chance (choice of all other locations was at chance). The impairment is consistent with both inhibition and expectation accounts; the facilitation is consistent only with expectation accounts. This work also shows that inhibition and expectation are not necessarily incompatible: Implementing expectations may entail inhibiting previously cued locations.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".