Changes in the focus of attention across time in individuals with autism: the effect of a dual-stream paradigm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Attentional Blink (AB) refers to the impaired identification of a second target that appears after a first target in a stream of rapidly presented stimuli (Raymond et al., 1992). Lag-1 sparing is the intact ability to correctly identify a second rapidly appearing target if it is presented directly following the first target (Potter et al., 1998). Individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) have characteristically presented with atypical spatial attention profiles (Ames & Fletcher-Watson, 2010) and the purpose of the current study was thus aimed at exploring the AB and Lag-1 sparing in autism by employing a rapid dual-stream presentation of stimuli at two different stimulus-onset asynchronies (SOA) where targets could appear in either of the streams. Eleven adolescents with ASD and 18 typically developing (TD) individuals were compared and it was found that while the TD group generally displayed Lag-1 sparing across nearly all conditions, the group with ASD never did. This is in contrast to previous researchers who reported the presence of Lag-1 sparing in individuals with ASD (Amirault et al., 2009). We hypothesize that the combination of dynamic changes in focused attention together with task difficulty inherent in the dual-stream paradigm, prevented Lag-1 sparing from occurring in individuals with autism, but not in TD individuals. Implications of these findings and future research directions are discussed. Keywords: autism, attentional blink, lag-1 sparing, dual-stream, spatial attention
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".