MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2331536246 · doi:10.1037/a0038903

Escape from temporal-integration masking: The roles of visible persistence and input filtering.

2015· article· en· W2331536246 on OpenAlexafffund
James W Patten, Hayley E. P. Lagroix, Peter Dixon, Vincent Di Lollo, Bertrand Sager, Ali Jannati, Matthew Yanko, Thomas M. Spalek

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsStimulus (psychology)Filter (signal processing)Computer scienceOffset (computer science)PerceptionArtificial intelligenceComputer visionMathematicsPsychologyCognitive psychologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A brief target embedded in—and coterminating with—a noise mask is identified easily when the duration of the mask is long but not when it is short (Di Lollo, 1980; inverse-duration effect). Identification has been said to be mediated by the visible persistence of the target, which outlasted that of the mask. We tested an alternative account based on input filtering triggered by the onset and offset of the target, relative to those of the mask, without recourse to visible persistence. The results of Experiment 1 could not be explained wholly in terms of visible persistence but were entirely consistent with input filtering. Identification suffered in Experiment 2 when transient responses were attenuated by "ramping." In Experiment 3, accuracy improved gradually as a function of leading-mask duration. All results were consistent with a modified version of von Holst's (1954) hypothesis that a new stimulus (e.g., the present mask) establishes an input filter within the system. Any sudden onsets or offsets then lead to the perception of a new object only when they do not match the input filter, thus becoming segregated from the temporally leading stimulus.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.542
Threshold uncertainty score0.328

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.103
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.260 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & PerformanceSame topicHearing Loss and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207