Reactivation of a previous target location: a new event-related potential component
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When two events occur in close temporal succession, processing of one can affect the processing of the other. We discovered a novel electrophysiological component that may elucidate such inter-event interactions. Participants viewed two displays (S1 and S2) shown sequentially in different locations. S1 and S2 each consisted of a target and a distractor presented either on the horizontal or vertical meridian. A pronounced event-related potential positivity, lateralized to the location of the S1 target, was evoked by the onset of S2, which appeared 100-1100 ms after S1. We refer to this component as re-activation positivity (PR). In follow-up experiments, we explored the processes that may be indexed by the PR. To examine whether the PR indexes disengagement of attention from the S1-target location upon presentation of S2, an irrelevant fixation cross was inserted in the display sequence between S1 and S2. The critical finding was that the PR was elicited by both the fixation cross and by the subsequent S2, providing evidence against an attentional disengagement account. On the alternate hypothesis that the PR represents reactivation of a spatially-specific memory of the S1 target, we examined whether the PR would occur if attention were directed to the S1-target location, but that location did not contain an item to be remembered. On half the trials, a colour oddball within a circular array of otherwise homogeneously-coloured rings contained a line segment, the orientation of which was to be remembered. On the other half of the trials, the oddball ring was empty, hence there was nothing to remember, and no response was required. The S2 display consisted of a digit presented at fixation 700 ms after S1. The PR was elicited by S2 on all trials, suggesting that maintenance of the S1-target in memory is also not essential for eliciting the PR. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2017
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".