Select, response, repeat: Electrophysiological measures of location and response repetition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the visual search literature, it has generally been shown that positive spatial priming occurs when a target requiring a discrimination response is presented at the same location as the preceding target. Two recent findings, however, provide important qualifications to such spatial priming. First, although spatial priming may be found with manual discrimination keypress responses, eye movements to repeated locations are inhibited. Second, what have been interpreted as spatial priming effects may largely be due to response repetition, rather than location repetition. Thus, the long-assumed relationship between spatial priming and attention is actually quite unclear. To provide clarity to this situation, we used the N2pc – an electrophysiological index of attentional selection – to reveal the effect of target-location and response repetition on deployments of covert attention. To accomplish this, participants completed a compound visual search task known to yield spatial priming. Each search display consisted of four chipped diamonds forming an imaginary square, centred around fixation. The target was a colour singleton, presented amongst homogeneously-coloured distractors. Participants made two-alternative-forced-choice discrimination responses to the shape of the target. Both the target’s shape and location in the search array varied randomly across search displays. As expected, keypress response times (RTs) were faster when the target location repeated instead of switched, but this effect was qualified by the relationship with response repetition: there was a large priming effect if both response and target location repeated, but the priming effect disappeared when responses switched. Importantly, N2pc amplitudes were always reduced when the target location repeated, both when responses repeated and switched. These results suggest that, like overt orienting, covert deployments of attention are biased against a previously attended location, while RTs are facilitated by later decisional processes when the target location and response repeat.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".