Dissociating spatial orienting biases from selection demands with eye movements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is ambiguity surrounding whether attentional orienting is biased in favor of or against locations that were previously attended in two-forced choice stimulus discrimination tasks. In the simplest case, a target appears abruptly in a distractor-less environment and its location randomly repeats from moment-to-moment. Here, there are response repetition tendencies whenever the target location repeats and roughly equal tendencies to switch from the prior response whenever the prior target location switches. These opposing effects equivocate whether there are orienting biases. In more complex cases, a unique target color is embedded in an array of homogenous distractors colors; once found, its shape is discriminated with a manual response. These "priming of pop-out" studies show faster responding overall whenever the target location repeats, suggesting that attention may be biased in favor of the prior target location. However, the magnitude of these positive position priming effects is determined by whether the response repeats, such that there is often little to no effect when the response switches. Thus, here too it is unclear to what extent position priming reflects an attentional orienting bias. In this study, we resolve this ambiguity. In our first set of experiments, four diamonds form an imaginary square centered on a fixation stimulus. The target diamond is a color singleton, and once found, its shape is discriminated. The findings reinforce prior observations showing that positive position priming is response-mediated. Our hypothesis is that position priming is tied to the effector making the discrimination judgment. If so, then we should observe an orienting bias in the eyes that is not contaminated by the processes involved in making manual discrimination judgements. Therefore, in our second set of experiments, we require eye movements to each target prior to the manual discrimination response and we find an orienting bias. 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 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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".