MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2963991229

Using a dynamic neural field model to explore a direct collicular inhibition account of inhibition of return

2013· article· en· W2963991229 on OpenAlexaff
Jason Satel, Ross Story, Matthew D. Hilchey, Zhiguo Wang, Raymond M. Klein

Bibliographic record

VenueeCite Digital Repository (University of Tasmania) · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInhibition of returnNeurophysiologyNeuroscienceExplanatory powerNeural activityPhenomenonPsychologyComputer scienceCognitive psychologyPerceptionVisual attentionPhysics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. When the interval between a transient flash of light (a “cue”) and a second visual response signal (a “target”) exceeds at least 200 ms, responding is slowest in the direction indicated by the first signal. This phenomenon is commonly referred to as inhibition of return (IOR). The dynamic neural field model (DNF) has proven to have broad ex-planatory power for IOR, effectively capturing many empirical results. Previous work has used a short-term depression (STD) implementation of IOR, but this approach fails to explain many behavioral phenomena observed in the literature. Here, we explore a variant model of IOR in-volving a combination of STD and delayed direct collicular inhibition. We demonstrate that this hybrid model can better reproduce established behavioural results. We use the results of this model to propose several experiments that would yield particularly valuable insight into the nature of the neurophysiological mechanisms underlying IOR.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.238
Threshold uncertainty score0.578

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.064
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.203 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeCite Digital Repository (University of Tasmania)Same topicVisual perception and processing mechanismsFrench-language works237,207