New Variations of Intrahemispheric and Interhemispheric Processing Indexed by the Dimond Paradigm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We report 2 experiments designed to demonstrate that unilateral tachistoscopic stimulation would yield a response time (RT) advantage over bilateral stimulation in a simple experiment, whereas the opposite pattern would occur in a complex version of the same task, as predicted by the intrahemispheric resource limitation model of Banich and colleagues. Experiment 1 was a go/no-go task in which participants had to press a key when two shapes (circles or squares) were identical on the computer screen. A unilateral field advantage was obtained that was accentuated in several task conditions that yielded overall longer RTs, mostly in the bilateral condition. Experiment 2 was similar but required a more complex judgment: The go trials were to 2 stimuli identical on 1 dimension (shape or color) but not both or neither. The RTs were significantly and substantially longer than in Experiment 1 and exhibited a nonsignificant bilateral field advantage, which differed significantly from the unilateral field advantage obtained in Experiment 1. These results support the intrahemispheric resource limitation model of Banich and colleagues. However, several within-experiment effects are in direct opposition to this model and are best explained as limitations of commissural relay of perceptual information.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".