MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4297616928

Pictures and Words: Priming and Category Effects in Object Processing

2007· article· en· W4297616928 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueOpenEdition (OpenEdition) · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFace Recognition and Perception
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLexical decision taskPriming (agriculture)Task (project management)Object (grammar)Cognitive psychologyPsychologySemantic memoryNatural language processingWord (group theory)Computer scienceArtificial intelligenceCognitionLinguistics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigated the influence of semantic priming on object processing as a function of both presentation modality and object category in a reality decision task. Participants performed a mixed decision (i.e., object and lexical decisions) on picture and word stimuli presented in isolation (Experiment 1) and in a semantic priming paradigm (Experiment 2). The results showed longer RTs and more errors for picture targets than for word targets, in both experiments. Category effects were also demonstrated: biological objects were associated with longer RTs and more errors than man made objects, only for pictures in Experiment 1 but in both modalities in Experiment 2. Thus, our data reveal a word superiority effect in reality decisions, independently of semantic priming, and provide additional evidence favoring the biological/man made dichotomy. Finally, our data show that the mixed decision task only requires lexical/structural processing when stimuli are presented in isolation and may involve implicit semantic access when participants perform the task as part of a semantic paradigm.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.717
Threshold uncertainty score0.927

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.005
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.255 · 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