Determining the relationship between emotion and sensory modality during stimulus localization.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Considerable evidence demonstrates that the presence of emotionally salient cues can influence the representation and processing of sensory information. These cues have the ability to enhance the representation of target stimuli, as well as potentiate the effect of sensory distractors. Interestingly, such effects appear to be influenced by subtle design details, including the sensory mode of both emotional distraction and target presentation. As most studies utilize consistent modes for stimulus presentation, delineation of emotional effects between the senses remains incomplete. The current experiment employed a search paradigm in which observers localized either an auditory (beep) or visual (dot) target within a 180° sensory array (3 monitors and 13 speakers). Simultaneously, task-irrelevant positive, negative, or neutral distractors, chosen from standardized databases and matched for arousal and valence, were presented across the entire sensory field. Thus, there were four unique blocks of trials (2 target modes X 2 distractor modes) with two intra-modal and two cross-modal conditions. After presentation of individual target-distractor pairings, observers indicated target location via mouse-click on a visual semicircle array. Confidence ratings were collected on a trial-by-trial basis. Whereas effects of emotion on target localization accuracy were identified in intra-modal conditions, no effects were observed in cross-modal conditions. During intra-modal conditions, task performance was poorest (greatest angular deviation between response and target direction) for targets paired with positive distractors. Furthermore, during auditory intra-modal trials, negative emotional distractors augmented localization performance, resulting in lower angular deviation between response direction and target location. These results, which are consistent with findings indicating impaired attentional focus in positive emotional contexts, suggest that emotional competition during stimulus location acquisition may arise in early stages of sensory processing, prior to cross-modal influence. Moreover, this study highlights importance of considering subtle experimental design features when interpreting emotional-related influences on sensory processes. 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".