Electrophysiological correlates of visual singleton detection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Identifying a fixed-feature singleton that pops out from an otherwise uniform array of distractors elicits an ERP component called the N2pc over the posterior scalp. The N2pc has been used to track attention with millisecond accuracy, inform theories of visual selection, and test for specific attention deficits in clinical populations, yet it is still unclear what neuro-cognitive process gives rise to the component. One hypothesis is that the N2pc reflects a spatial filtering process that suppresses irrelevant distractors. In support of this hypothesis, Luck and Hillyard (1994a) showed that the N2pc is eliminated when the features of the target and distractors switch unpredictably across trials (so that participants cannot prepare to filter out irrelevant items). The present study aimed to replicate Luck and Hillyard's singleton detection experiment but with modifications to enhance the N2pc signal and to gain statistical power. We show that orientation singletons do, in fact, elicit the N2pc as well as an earlier-onset and longer-lasting singleton detection positivity over the occipital scalp when the target and distractor orientations swap randomly across trials. We conclude that spatial filtering might not play a major role in the generation of the N2pc and that the selection processes required to search for fixed-feature targets (in feature-search mode) are also engaged in the detection of variable-feature singletons (in singleton detection mode).
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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".