Attention goes both ways: Shifting attention influences lexical decisions.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spatial components of concepts can influence the speed with which peripheral targets are responded to (e.g., the word God speeds responses to targets presented above fixation; devil speeds responses to targets presented below fixation). The basic premise underlying these conceptual cueing effects is that thinking of a spatial metaphor activates an internal spatial representation which in turn influences the allocation of attention in the visual field. An important step forward in understanding conceptual cues is determining whether the underlying process is bidirectional: Do shifts of attention facilitate activation of corresponding conceptual information? To test this, a peripheral cue was used to induce shifts of attention to a peripheral location, and the effect of this shift on concept processing was measured with a standard lexical-decision task in which participants made word/nonword responses to a letter string presented at fixation (Experiments 1 and 3), or with a modified lexical-decision task in which participants made English/Dutch judgments of a word presented auditorily (Experiment 2). If shifts of attention activate spatially compatible concepts, then shifting attention to a peripheral location should speed lexical decisions for spatially compatible concepts such that leftward shifts lead to faster lexical decisions of left relative to right concepts (and likewise for rightward, upward, and downward shifts). Our results support this prediction, suggesting that behaviors in the visual field can influence the activation of internal representations. (PsycINFO Database Record
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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 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".