Freely-selected and forced-choice responses bind with relevant object-occupied locations in visuospatial tasks.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Past work has shown that cued manual responses in visuo-identity tasks bind to irrelevant stimulus features, present at the time these responses were executed (prime trial). These response bindings manifested their existence via impacts on later related processing (probe trial). Here, we extended this prior research by showing that response binding is likely a pervasive processing characteristic. We saw that uncertain prime-trial responses (i.e., free-choice, forced-choice) did bind to the relevant "location" feature of the prime stimulus in a visuospatial task (i.e., R-L binding). Overall, R-L binding evidence was better for within-hand than for between-hand probe-trial finger competitions and better for probe trial response selection preferences than for their reaction time (RT) data. R-L binding evidence was entirely absent, however, for forced-choice probe trials. Evidence that the prime response binds to irrelevant prime display features (i.e., prime stimulus identity [R-I binding]) was virtually absent. Other results indicated that R-I likely exists, but that its probe-trial manifestation is prevented by the involvement of R-L binding. Response binding impacts on later processing should be considered when interpreting RT data. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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 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".