MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2410265395 · doi:10.1037/xhp0000131

Sensory processing patterns predict the integration of information held in visual working memory.

2015· article· en· W2410265395 on OpenAlexafffund
Matthew X. Lowe, Ryan A. Stevenson, Kristin Wilson, Natasha E Ouslis, Morgan D. Barense, Jonathan S. Cant, Susanne Ferber

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Canadian institutionsThe Scarborough HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of TorontoNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research ChairsHarvard University
KeywordsSensory systemWorking memoryPerceptionComputer scienceInformation processingSet (abstract data type)Cognitive psychologySensory processingSensory memoryVisual perceptionPopulationAffect (linguistics)PsychologyRepresentation (politics)CognitionCommunicationNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Given the limited resources of visual working memory, multiple items may be remembered as an averaged group or ensemble. As a result, local information may be ill-defined, but these ensemble representations provide accurate diagnostics of the natural world by combining gist information with item-level information held in visual working memory. Some neurodevelopmental disorders are characterized by sensory processing profiles that predispose individuals to avoid or seek-out sensory stimulation, fundamentally altering their perceptual experience. Here, we report such processing styles will affect the computation of ensemble statistics in the general population. We identified stable adult sensory processing patterns to demonstrate that individuals with low sensory thresholds who show a greater proclivity to engage in active response strategies to prevent sensory overstimulation are less likely to integrate mean size information across a set of similar items and are therefore more likely to be biased away from the mean size representation of an ensemble display. We therefore propose the study of ensemble processing should extend beyond the statistics of the display, and should also consider the statistics of the observer. (PsycINFO Database Record

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.434
Threshold uncertainty score0.429

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.225
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations11
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & PerformanceSame topicNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesFrench-language works237,207