Contralateral delay activity predicts the affective consequences of ignoring items in visual working memory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One consequence of ignoring visual objects in our environment is that we subsequently like those objects less; a stimulus-devaluation effect linked to attentional inhibition. While such 'inhibitory devaluation' has been well studied using perceptual tasks, little is known about the affective consequences of inhibition at later stages of representation. In the present experiment we combined behavioral and electrophysiological measures to examine inhibitory devaluation of items maintained in visual working memory (VWM). We specifically used the contralateral delay activity (CDA) event-related potential to investigate the immediate consequences of ignoring objects stored in VWM and whether changes in CDA amplitude are associated with the subsequent devaluation of ignored objects. Each trial of the experiment consisted of two tasks: a VWM test and a stimulus affective rating. Participants memorized three colored squares located on one side of a lateralized memory array. During the retention interval, a retro-cue was presented specifying with 100% validity that their memory of the cued item would be tested, and that the two un-cued items could be ignored. We found significant devaluation of un-cued stimuli relative to cued stimuli. Moreover, individual differences in the magnitude of devaluation were correlated with post retro-cue CDA amplitude (r=-.60), and with an earlier negative-going potential that resembled the latency and scalp distribution of an attention-related N2pc component time-locked to the retro-cue (r=-.59). However, differences in stimulus devaluation did not correlate with components prior to the retro-cue. Together, these electrophysiological results converge with our recent demonstration that the affective consequences of inhibition are the same for items represented solely in visual working memory as they are for sensory stimuli appearing in the external environment. More broadly, these results add to the growing literature comparing internal and external attentional mechanisms by demonstrating that attentional inhibition leads to the devaluation of distracting stimuli within both domains. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2016
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".