Where to Take a Rest: An Attention Restoration Theory Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the present study is to test the following research questions: RQ1. How does individuals' presence experience during exposure to 360 virtual nature differently affect the subjective evaluation of perceived restorativeness? RQ2. How does individuals' presence experience during exposure to 360 virtual nature differently affect involuntary attention restoration as indicated by the modulation of auditory Mismatch Negativity (aMMN) and P3a amplitude?; RQ3. Will the 'subjective' self-reported and 'objective' event-related potential (ERP) responses be congruent? Based on attention restoration theory [1], nature can allow depleted directed attention to rest and restore by drawing involuntary attention that requires no efforts. According to previous ERP studies on the during-effect of meditation, long-term mediators showed significantly reduced aMMN [2] and P3a [3] amplitudes than non-mediators. Assuming that the differences in individual's presence level would boost this meditation-like effect [4] and the aMMN would be attention-independent [5], we hypothesized that people with a high level of presence experience would have significantly increased perceived restorativeness scale (PRS) scores and reduced P3a responses to the natural virtual environment (VE) than those with a low level of presence experience.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".