Using Mental Set to Change the Size of Posner's Attentional Spotlight: Implications for how Words are Processed in Visual Space
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present thesis investigated how words are processed within the context of visual search. Both explicit and implicit measures were used to assess whether spatial attention is a prerequisite for words to undergo processing. In the explicit search task, subjects searched a display and indicated whether a word was present or absent among nonword distractors. In the implicit task, priming was employed to index word processing. Subjects viewed the same search displays that were used in the explicit task, however, the displays were presented briefly and were followed by a single target letter string to which subjects performed a lexical decision. In Experiments 3 through 6, in which the target was always presented at fixation, no priming was evident. In Experiments 7 and 8 when the location of the target moved from trial to trial, priming was observed. It is argued that attentional resources are narrowly allocated to a location in visual space when target location is certain but diffusely allocated when target location is uncertain. Furthermore, processing only occurs for words that fall within the suffusion of this strategically pliable attentional beam. The results are also interpreted within the domains of perceptual cuing and attentional capture.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it