Still making attentional errors: A modified slip induction task
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Action slips are often harmless (like putting milk in the cupboard), but can sometimes lead to grave consequences. A Slip Induction Task was developed in which participants followed a series of arrow cues to complete a sequence of movements. Following learning, some arrow cues were altered in an attempt to induce action slips. Cues were unaltered or altered either in spatial location (Positional alteration), movement goal (Directional alteration) or both (Combined alteration). It was found that Directional alterations produced more errors than Positional or Combined alterations, which did not differ from each other. These findings revealed that when the arrow cue appeared at the expected target location but required a movement to a different target location (Directional alteration) the greatest number of slips occurred. Perhaps such slip errors arose because the expected (but no longer correct) target captured the participants' attention. Some support may come from the observation that participants were quicker to initiate erroneous responses to altered trials than correct responses. Further insight can be seen as when participants correctly responded to an altered trial, they required significantly longer movement times to the target than when they responded erroneously to an altered trial. These longer movement times may reflect a microslip where the participant begins a movement to the expected target but then makes a correction on line to the newly designated target. Acknowledgments: 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 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 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".