MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2893420835 · doi:10.1167/18.10.1183

Dissociating two forms of inhibition of return using temporal order judgments

2018· article· en· W2893420835 on OpenAlexaff
Ralph S. Redden, Austin Hurst, Raymond M. Klein

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInhibition of returnCued speechPsychologyPerceptionCognitive psychologyNeuroscienceVisual attention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inhibition of return (IOR) is an inhibitory aftereffect of visuospatial orienting, typically observed in the spatial cueing paradigm by way of slower responses to cued rather than uncued targets. Early work on IOR using temporal order judgments (TOJ; Posner, Rafal, Choate & Vaughan, 1985; Maylor, 1985; Klein, Schmidt & Muller, 1998) showed no effect on arrival time judgments, suggesting IOR is acting at a post-perceptual information processing stage, although at precisely what stage - attentional or motoric - has been quite contested (Taylor & Klein, 2000; Abrams & Dobkin, 1994; Ivanoff & Klein, 2006; Ivanoff, Klein & Lupianez, 2002). Recent work, however, suggests that there are two forms of IOR (Chica, Taylor, Lupianez & Klein, 2010; Hilchey, Klein & Satel, 2014; Klein & Redden, in press; Redden, Hilchey & Klein, 2016); one operating nearer the input end of the information processing continuum affecting the quality of inputs and the other nearer the output end affecting responding, whereby the type of effect that is manifest is contingent upon the activation state of the reflexive oculomotor system at the time the effect is generated. We tested this theory in a TOJ task, where subjects were required to either make a prosaccade (output form) or antisaccade (input form) after the onset a spatially uninformative peripheral cue, and subsequently execute a TOJ or speeded colour identification response. Both groups showed inhibited RT for colour probes presented at the cued location. We saw dissociable effects on colour identification depending on whether input or output IOR was generated. Furthermore, we found inhibited perceptual processing in the TOJ task when the input form was generated, but no effect on TOJs in the group that elicited the output form. These findings provide converging evidence that there are two forms of IOR: an input effect operating on a saliency map, and an output effect operating on a priority map. 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.323 · 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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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