"You say tomato I say tomahto": Does social inhibition of return emerge when two people execute different actions?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Numerous studies have revealed that reaction time (RT) to a target stimulus is longer when the stimulus appears in the same spatial location as a previous stimulus relative to when the stimulus is presented at a different location. This phenomenon, termed inhibition of return (IOR), has most often been studied with participants responding to stimuli on their own (individual or iIOR). More recently IOR has also been found when a participant observes the response of another individual immediately before responding themselves (social or sIOR). The present study aimed to determine if sIOR occurs when participants perform different actions in response to shared target stimuli. Participants sat opposite each other and responded to the same stimuli, but performed different actions in response to the targets – one performed aiming movements, one performed key presses. Using spectacles with liquid crystal lenses, vision of a partner’s action was manipulated such that in the Restricted Vision condition the stimulus onset and end-point of a partner’s action were not seen. In the Full Vision condition, stimulus onset and the partner’s entire response was visible to the observer prior to their own action. As expected, sIOR was seen in all Full Vision conditions. Of greater theoretical interest, sIOR did not emerge in the Restricted Vision condition when participants observed an action different from their own immediately before responding. The present results suggest that, in sIOR paradigms, viewing different actions to one’s own fail to generate the attentional shift necessary to activate the mechanisms driving the sIOR effect.
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 | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".