When caused by an eye movement inhibition of return's effect is post-perceptual: Evidence from SAT functions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inhibition of return (IOR) is an inhibitory aftermath of orienting typically seen in the form of slower response to targets presented in the previously attended location. IOR has been shown to exist in two mutually exclusive forms (Taylor & Klein, 2000): an effect on motoric processes (an output form) is observed when the oculomotor system is not suppressed and an effect on attentional/perceptual processes (an input form) when the oculomotor system is suppressed. Whereas Chica, Taylor, Lupianez, and Klein (2010) discovered that when caused by an eye movement to an uninformative peripheral cue, the delay in responding to targets at the originally cued location (the IOR effect) was accompanied by more accurate responding (a speed-accuracy tradeoff). It is impossible to tell from their data pattern if this evidence for a criterion shift was or was not accompanied by a genuine improvement in information processing. We investigated the trading relation between speed and accuracy when IOR was caused by an eye movement to a spatially-uninformative cue by implementing five 210 ms response windows (beginning 120ms, 240ms, 360ms, 480ms, and 600ms after the target's appearance) within which observers were required to make a non-spatial discrimination about the target. By generating speed-accuracy tradeoff functions as proposed by Wickelgren (1977) and implemented by Ivanoff and Klein (2006), we determined the output form of IOR is characterized exclusively by a criterion shift, as represented by performance at both cued and uncued locations existing on a single speed-accuracy function. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2014
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".