Reconfiguration and Inertial Processes in Attention Switching during Reading
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Shifting or switching attention from one task to another involves a cost in cognitive processing (Rogers & Monsell, 1995). Different paradigms have been developed to investigate the mechanisms that may underlie such switch costs. For example, Rogers and Monsell (1995) developed the alternating runs paradigm requiring responses to two different tasks that alternate (...AABBAA...) so as to create a predictable sequence of repeat trials and switch trials. They found reaction times on switch trials were slower than on repeat trials, even with a long delay between a response and the upcoming stimulus (residual switch cost). This result was hypothesized to be compatible with the existence of an endogenous “reconfiguration” process, a stage of preparation for the predictable, upcoming trial. Wylie and Allport (2000) created a 3-phase version of the alternating runs paradigm. Phases varied according to whether stimuli were monovalent (affording performance of only one task) or bivalent (affording performance on either task even though only one was appropriate). In Phase 1, all trials were monovalent, in Phase 2 half were bivalent and half monovalent, and in Phase 3 all were bivalent. This design allowed comparison of performance on dissimilar switch trials following similar repeat trials (switch to monovalent versus bivalent trials from monovalent repeat trial), and performance on similar switch trials following diss imi lar repeat trials (switch to bivalent from a monovalent versus bivalent repeat trial). Wylie and Allport found that performance on switch trials depended on whether the preceding repeat trial was monovalent or bivalent, and that performance on monovalent versus bivalent switch trials did not vary when the nature of the preceding repeat trial was held constant. They concluded that switch costs reflect inertial inhibitory processes persisting from the previous trial that interfere with and hence slow processing needed for the current trial. Recently, Carriere (2002) in our lab found that both reconfiguration and inertial mechanisms may be implicated in switch costs involving simple, decontextualized stimuli. It is not known, however, whether these processes play a role in more complex activities. We studied this question using a reading activity involving sentence-like materials.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".