MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2569494463 · doi:10.1167/16.12.687

Tuning perception: the content of visual working memory biases the quality of visual awareness

2016· article· en· W2569494463 on OpenAlexaff
Christine Salahub, Stephen M. Emrich

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyPerceptionStimulus (psychology)Cognitive psychologyWorking memoryCognitionVisual perceptionVisual maskingSet (abstract data type)AudiologyComputer scienceNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The likelihood that an individual will become subjectively aware of a visual stimulus can be affected by experimental manipulations of the stimulus itself (i.e., visual masking) or manipulation of cognitive factors. For example, previous studies have demonstrated that items held in visual working memory (VWM) that match target features allow targets to reach visual awareness faster. These studies on visual awareness have often used coarse measures of awareness, such as present/absent or forced-choice judgments. This has resulted in an all-or-none conceptualization of visual awareness, wherein an item is either seen or remains "invisible". However, recent evidence from object-substitution masking paradigms (OSM) suggest that visual awareness may instead be a graded process, as masking an item decreases the quality of its perceptual representation in addition to its threshold of awareness. In the present study we examined whether items held in VWM could influence the quality with which a partially masked target reached awareness. Participants were asked to hold an oriented Landolt C in VWM across each OSM trial (set size 2 or 4). On half of the trials the orientation of the Landolt C held in VWM matched the masked target, and on the other half it did not match the target. Data were analyzed using the three-component mixture model to determine the proportion of target responses, guesses, non-target responses, and the error (standard deviation) of responses within each condition. It was found that targets matching the contents of VWM were subsequently perceived with greater precision (i.e., less error). The item held in VWM did not affect the likelihood of making a target response, guess, or non-target error. These results suggest that items held in VWM are able to tune the quality of visual representations, which is a finding that is at odds with an all-or-none conceptualization of consciousness. 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.430
GPT teacher head0.493
Teacher spread0.063 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Vision→Same topicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies→French-language works237,207→