The puzzle of spontaneous alternation and inhibition of return: How they might fit together
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two isolated spatial phenomena share a similar "been there; done that" effect on spatial behavior. Originally discovered in rodent learning experiments, spontaneous alternation is a tendency for the organism to visit a different arm in a T-maze on subsequent trials. Originally discovered in human studies of attention, inhibition of return is a tendency for the organism to orient away from a previously attended location. Whereas spontaneous alternation was identified by O'Keefe & Nadel as dependent on an intact hippocampus, inhibition of return is dependent on neural structures that participate in oculomotor control (the superior colliculus, parietal and frontal cortex). Despite the isolated literatures, each phenomenon has been assumed to reflect a basic novelty-seeking process, avoiding places previously visited or locations attended. In this commentary, we explore and compare the behavioral manifestations and neural underpinnings of these two phenomena, and suggest what is still needed to determine whether they operate in parallel or serial.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| 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".