MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3094952424 · doi:10.1167/jov.20.11.435

Attentional capture with emotional cues remains intact in amblyopia

2020· article· en· W3094952424 on OpenAlexaff
Amy Chow, Yiwei Quan, Celine Chui, Roxane J. Itier, Benjamin Thompson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyFacial expressionGazeFixation (population genetics)MonocularCued speechEye movementAudiologyEmotional expressionCognitive psychologyEye trackingCommunicationNeuroscienceMedicineComputer vision

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Amblyopia is a neurodevelopmental disorder of vision that has been associated with visual attention deficits. We investigated whether attentional capture by fearful facial expressions was affected by amblyopia. Methods: Participants (n = 30 controls; 10 amblyopia) completed a cued peripheral target (0.9 deg x 0.9 deg) detection task. The cue was a centrally presented face with left or right gaze. The face adopted a fearful, happy or neutral expression for 500 ms. The target was then presented in a location either congruent or incongruent to the face’s direction of gaze. Participants indicated target location (left/right) and reaction times were measured. Central fixation was ensured using an eye tracker. Gaze cueing for each emotional expression was computed as the difference in reaction time between congruent and incongruent trials. 128 trials were performed for each facial expression across 3 viewing conditions in a randomized order: monocular non-dominant/amblyopic eye (NDE), monocular dominant eye (DE), and binocular (BE). Participants also rated the valence and intensity of each facial expression, viewing with the non-dominant eye. Results: Ratings for the facial expressions were not affected by amblyopia. Reaction times for the non-dominant/amblyopic eye were analyzed with a 3 (Emotion: fear, neutral, happy) x 2 (Congruency: congruent, incongruent) x 2 (Group: control, amblyopia) ANOVA. Consistent with previous work, there was a significant interaction between Emotion and Congruency, characterized by a stronger gaze cueing effect for fearful versus neutral and happy expressions. There was no effect of Group. Post-hoc analysis revealed that the significant interaction between Emotion and Congruency was present for both groups independently. The expected interaction between Emotion and Congruency was also present in the other two viewing conditions. Conclusion: Although spatial attention deficits are associated with amblyopia, attentional capture with emotional cues appears to remain intact.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Vision→Same topicVisual perception and processing mechanisms→French-language works237,207→