Temperamental variation in learned irrelevance in humans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<b>Background</b><br /> Learned irrelevance (LIRR) represents one of the mechanisms of attentional set-shifting and refers to the inability to attend to, or to learn about, any aspect of a stimulus previously experienced as irrelevant. Although it has been extensively studied in the context of clinical populations, not much is known about LIRR effects in relation to normal variation in individual differences. The present study was designed to assess how temperamental factors may modulate LIRR. <br /> <br /> <b>Participants and procedures</b><br /> Sixty-eight healthy volunteers performed a visual discrimination learning task modelled after Wisconsin Card Sorting Test. To test the susceptibility to learned irrelevance, participants were expected to shift their attention either to a dimension that prior to the extra-dimensional shift was completely irrelevant, or to a dimension that was previously partly correlated with reinforcement. Temperamental traits were assessed using the Formal Characteristics of Behaviour-Temperament Inventory (Zawadzki & Strelau, 1997). Intelligence level was stratified according to Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices (Raven, Raven, & Court, 2003).<br /> <br /> <b>Results</b><br /> Low level of Briskness and high level of Perseverance were related to enhanced susceptibility to LIRR. High levels of Activity and Emotional Reactivity were related to the poorer performance on the extra-dimensional set-shifting. No effects of other temperament characteristics or intelligence on LIRR were observed.<br /> <br /> <b>Conclusions</b><br /> The results confirm a strong variation in LIRR related to individual differences in temperament, which appears to be unrelated to DA function. Our results highlight the importance of considering individual differences in studies on cognitive control.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".