Examining the Locus of the Attentional Attraction Effect
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The orienting of attention is known to distort regions of visual space. For example, a shift of attention towards peripheral cues causes the mislocalization of central vernier line targets away from the focus of attention (the attentional repulsion effect). However, by reversing the order of presentation of the vernier lines and cues, a substantial attraction effect is found (i.e., the vernier lines are now mislocalized toward the attended peripheral locations). The purpose of this study was to identify the locus of this attentional attraction effect. Participants were asked to judge the location of the top vernier line relative to the bottom line, with any attraction effect being computed as the tendency to perceive the top line as closer to the location of the cue. Unlike the repulsion effect, the attraction effect was found in an interocular display condition in which the vernier lines were presented to one eye and the peripheral cues were presented to the other eye, using LCD goggles. This result suggests that the attentional attraction effect is a higher order process as compared to the repulsion effect, and likely requires visual short term memory. To test this, we inserted either a spatial memory load task (remembering the locations of one or three squares) or color memory load task (remembering the colors of one or three squares) before the attentional attraction effect task (i.e., vernier line targets followed by peripheral cues). The results showed that occupying spatial memory reduced the magnitude of the attraction effect while the color memory load had no effect. Overall, these results indicate that the attentional attraction effect is quite different from the attentional repulsion effect, as it involves higher order visual processes that require spatial working memory. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2013
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".