MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2893071469 · doi:10.1167/18.10.1262

Involuntary orienting to visual and auditory stimuli elicits similar biasing mechanisms in early visual cortex to facilitate target processing

2018· article· en· W2893071469 on OpenAlexaff
Viola S. Störmer, John K. McDonald, Steven A. Hillyard

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCued speechPsychologyFixation (population genetics)N2pcVisual cortexVisual processingPerceptionVisual perceptionContrast (vision)Stimulus (psychology)AudiologyNeuroscienceCognitive psychologyMedicineComputer scienceComputer visionPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A sudden visual or acoustic change in the environment can capture attention involuntarily and facilitate perceptual processing of a subsequent visual target at the same location. The behavioral consequences of this uni- and cross-modal cueing of attention have been well documented, but the underlying neural mechanisms and how they may differ depending on the modality of the cue remain elusive. Here we use EEG to directly compare the effects of visual and auditory cues on subsequent target processing and examine neural activity elicited by the cues themselves. Participants were presented with two Gabor patches at the same time (one to the left and one to the right of fixation) and were asked to indicate the orientation of the Gabor that appeared higher in contrast (cf., Carrasco et al., 2004). Prior to the presentation of these visual targets a non-predictive visual (Exp.1) or auditory (Exp.2) cue was presented at either the left or right location. Across both experiments we found that participants judged the Gabor patch on the cued side to have higher contrast (visual: t(19)=3.76, p=0.001; auditory: t(15)=4.07, p< 0.001), consistent with previous findings. Furthermore, in both cases, these behavioral effects were accompanied by a boost in early cortical processing beginning at 100ms post target onset (visual: p=0.00001; auditory: p=0.004) On trials where no targets were presented, visual and auditory cues elicited a slow positive deflection over contralateral visual cortex between 260 to 360ms post cue onset (visual: p< 0.0001; auditory: p< 0.0002). The time course of this cue-elicited neural biasing over visual areas matches the well-established time course of the behavioral benefits of exogenous cueing of attention. Overall, these results indicate that sudden events in the environment – regardless of sensory modality – cause reflexive shifts of attention that result in similar neural modulations in visual cortex. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2018

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.060
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.296 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Vision→Same topicVisual perception and processing mechanisms→French-language works237,207→