Distilling the distinct contralateral and ipsilateral attentional responses to lateral stimuli and the bilateral response to midline stimuli for upper and lower visual hemifield locations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A contralateral posterior negativity elicited by lateral oddballs (N2pc) and a bilateral posterior negativity elicited by vertical midline oddballs (bilateral N2) are ERP components reflecting attentional deployment that have been rarely compared. In different tasks, we explored to what extent they reflect similar underlying mechanisms of attention. We used a multiple-frame procedure to present pop-out color oddballs among distractors. A homogeneous condition contained only distractors (0 oddballs) and served as a control condition that was subtracted from oddball-present conditions to isolate attention effects. The number of oddballs and the vertical hemifield containing them (upper vs. lower) were two critical factors. For the lower hemifield, the signal amplitude increased with the number of oddballs, otherwise had similar effects and scalp distributions, suggesting the bilateral N2 acted as a bilateral N2pc and likely reflected similar underlying generators. For the upper hemifield, component amplitude also increased with the number of oddballs, but the scalp distributions were positive and more centered, suggesting inverted generators across the two vertical hemifields. An ipsilateral positivity occurred about 50 ms after a contralateral positivity, similar in magnitude, producing a biphasic contra-minus-ipsi difference wave. Previously reported smaller negative N2pc components for upper hemifield oddballs likely reflected a negative lobe artificially created by the subtraction of a lagged positive ipsilateral response. The results compel us to argue for a systematic separation of data for upper versus lower hemifields in studies of visuo-spatial attention, and the use of an experimental design permitting the separate estimation of contralateral and ipsilateral responses.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".