Can arrows change the subjective perception of space? Exploring symbolic attention repulsion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The attention repulsion effect (ARE) refers to distortions in the perception of space for areas near the focus of attention. For instance, when attending to the right-hand side of the visual field, objects in central vision may appear as though they are shifted to the left. The phenomenon is likely caused by changes in visual cell functioning. To date, research on the ARE has almost exclusively used exogenous manipulations of attention. In contrast, research exploring endogenous attention repulsion has been mixed, and no research has explored the effects of nonpredictive arrow cues on this phenomenon. This gap in the literature is unexpected, as symbolic attention appears to be a unique form of attentional orienting compared with endogenous and exogenous attention. Therefore, this study explored the effects of symbolic orienting on spatial repulsion and compared it with an exogenously generated ARE. Across four experiments, both exogenous and symbolic orienting resulted in AREs; however, the magnitude of the symbolic ARE was smaller than the exogenous ARE. This difference in magnitude persisted, even after testing both phenomena using stimulus timing parameters known to produce optimal effects in traditional attentional cueing paradigms. Therefore, compared with symbolic attention, it appears that exogenous manipulations may tightly constrict attention resources on the cued location, in turn, potentially influencing the functioning of visual cells for enhanced perceptual processing.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".