MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2596636809

Administering testosterone augments endogenous, but not exogenous visual orienting of attention in males

2015· article· en· W2596636809 on OpenAlexaff
Steve Hansen, Jim McAuliffe, Bernard Goldfarb, Justin M. Carré

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Exercise, Movement, and Sport · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsNipissing University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInhibition of returnEndogenyPsychologyDopaminergicStimulus (psychology)CognitionOrienting responseHormoneTestosterone (patch)PlaceboEstrogenDevelopmental psychologyInternal medicineEndocrinologyAudiologyVisual attentionDopamineNeuroscienceCognitive psychologyMedicineHabituation
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Visual orienting of attention in healthy human males was examined following the administration of testosterone (T). In males, T has been found to influence the dopaminergic system which has been found to change the efficiency of various cognitive functions such as stimulus identification and inhibition of response output. Similarly, high levels of Estrogen associated with a female's ovulatory phase have been linked to higher dopaminergic activity and then larger inhibition effects during paradigms involving reflexive orienting of attention. Overall, individual differences in visual attention are potentially due to both distinct neural structures and variations in hormone levels. In this study, the influence of T on reflexive and volitional orienting of visual attention was investigated. Sixteen participants completed both an exogenous and an endogenous cueing task on two days of testing that were separated by two weeks. On each day, participants were administered either T or a placebo. The expected inhibition of return (IOR) was observed in the exogenous task, F(1, 15) = 39.05, p< 0.001. However, T did not moderate IOR (p= 0.266). Participants also demonstrated the expected cueing effects during the endogenous task, F(2, 30) = 25.5, p< 0.001. However, following T administration, there was a much longer delay responding to a target after an invalid cue, F(2, 30) = 5.65, p< 0.008. The results indicate that hormone levels can influence visual orienting of attention in a state specific manner. The data support the notion that individual differences in inhibitory control are dependent upon hormonal levels and/or neural-structural variation.Acknowledgments: SH supported by CFI. JMC supported by NSERC.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.536

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Exercise, Movement, and SportSame topicVisual perception and processing mechanismsFrench-language works237,207