Repetition Blindness and Retrieval-Time Effects of Full- vs. Partial-Report Following the Rapid Serial Visual Presentation (RSVP) of Letters in Words
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although commonly accepted as an encoding/representational/perceptual phenomenon, repeti- tion deficits (“repetition blindness”) in Rapid Serial Visual Presentation (RSVP) can be shown to be markedly influenced by retrieval-time tasks independently of item encoding. We demonstrate such influences in a series of within-participant experiments where retrieval conditions are un- predictably varied after items have been experienced. Repetition deficits are demonstrated when full report of the presented item is required and in partial-report conditions where the repeated letter is included in the retrieval cue but not in partial-report conditions where the repeated letter is not included in the retrieval cue. Such effects are not expected if repetition deficits in RSVP are thought to be principally a function of the encoding/representation/perception of the trial experience.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 it