Localizing the Neural Substrate of Reflexive Covert Orienting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The capture of covert spatial attention by salient visual events influences subsequent gaze behavior. A task irrelevant stimulus (cue) can reduce (Attention capture) or prolong (Inhi-bition of return) saccade reaction time to a subsequent target stimulus depending on the cue-target delay. Here we investigated the mechanisms that underlie the sensory-based account of AC/IOR by manipulating the visual processing stage where the cue and target interact. In Experiment 1, liquid crystal shutter goggles were used to test whether AC/IOR occur at a monocular versus binocular processing stage (before versus after signals from both eyes converge). In Experiment 2, we tested whether visual orientation selective mechanisms are critical for AC/IOR by using oriented “Gabor” stimuli. We found that the magnitude of AC and IOR was not different between monocular and interocular viewing conditions, or between iso- and ortho-oriented cue-target interactions. The results suggest that the visual mechanisms that contribute to AC/IOR arise at an orientation-independent binocular processing stage.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".