The scope of no return: Openness predicts the spatial distribution of Inhibition of Return
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How and what we attend to is foundational in determining the content of our experience, thus differences in attention contribute significantly to how we perceive the world, learn, and develop. Personality also plays a role in constraining how we learn to perceive the world and it is conceivable that some facets of personality interact with visual attention; however, the relationship between these two constitutional aspects of psychology remains unclear. To address this interplay between cognition and personality, we looked at how the Big Five personality traits relate to the spatial scope of attention, as indexed by the spatial distribution of Inhibition of Return (IOR). IOR is marked by a decrement in reaction time when a target appears at a cued location, more than 200 ms after that cue. As the cue/target distance increases there is a release from inhibition, providing a measure of the spatial distribution of IOR and reflecting the spatial scope of attention. The results presented here show personality does predict the distribution of IOR. Specifically, higher trait Openness is associated with a broader distribution of IOR and attention. This finding suggests there is an intimate connection between personality, particularly Openness, and the spatial allocation of 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.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".