Exploring the Dissociations between Overt and Covert Mechanisms of Spatial Attention and Inhibition of Return
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prompted by oculomotor theories of attention, the present experiments explore the role of saccade activation in the generation of two cueing effects: exogenous capture (Experiment 1) and inhibition of return (IOR; Experiment 2). Exogenous capture is shortlived and marked by faster responding toward recently stimulated locations, whereas the longer-lasting IOR manifests as slower responding toward those locations. Within each experiment, Group A performed in a dual-task in which on most trials a peripheral target had to be identified but infrequently a central arrow probe called for an eye movement instead, while for Group B the tasks were the same except saccade trials were frequent and target identification trials were infrequent. In Experiment 1, for group A uninformative cues captured attention as measured by faster digit identification at the cued location, an effect not accompanied by saccade activation. For group B, cues generated saccade activation without capturing attention. Thus saccade activation need not accompany exogenous covert capture, and covert capture need not accompany saccade activation. In Experiment 2, group A exhibited IOR which slowed digit identification, but did not affect saccadic responding, while Group B exhibited no IOR in either digit identification or eye movement trials. This finding provides converging evidence that IOR can be dichotomized into two forms; one which delays motor production itself (Evidenced amply elsewhere, e.g., Taylor & Klein, 2000) and another which delays responding by applying inhibition at a perceptual-motor interface which can operate in independence from its motoric cousin.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".