Covert orienting in the split brain: Right hemisphere specialization for object-based attention
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present paper takes as its starting point Phil Bryden's long-standing interest in human attention and the role it can play in laterality effects. Past split-brain research has suggested that object-based attention is lateralized to the left hemisphere [e.g., Egly, R., Rafal, R. D., Driver, J., & Starreveld, Y. (1994). Covert orienting in the split brain reveals hemispheric specialization for object-based attention. Psychological Science, 5(6), 380-382]. The task used to isolate object-based attention in that previous work, however, has been found wanting [Vecera, S. P. (1994). Grouped locations and object-based attention: Comment on Egly, Driver, and Rafal (1994). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 123(3), 316-320]; and indeed, subsequent research with healthy participants using a different task has suggested that object-based attention is lateralized to the opposite right hemisphere (RH) [Valsangkar-Smyth, M. A., Donovan, C. L., Sinnett, S., Dawson, M. R., & Kingstone, A. (2004). Hemispheric performance in object-based attention. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11(1), 84-91]. The present study tested the same split-brain as Egly, Rafal, et al. (1994) but used the object-based attention task introduced by Valsangkar-Smyth et al. (2004). The results confirm that object-based attention is lateralized to the RH. They also suggest that subcortical interhemispheric competition may occur and be dominated by the RH.
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 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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it