Differential and Overlapping Effects between Exogenous and Endogenous Attention Shape Perceptual Facilitation during Visual Processing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Visuospatial attention is not a monolithic process and can be divided into different functional systems. In this framework, exogenous attention reflects the involuntary orienting of attention resources following a salient event, whereas endogenous attention corresponds to voluntary orienting based on the goals and intentions of individuals. Previous work shows that these attention processes map onto distinct functional systems, yet evidence suggests that they are not fully independent. In the current work, we investigated the differential and overlapping effects of exogenous and endogenous attention on visual processing. We combined spatial cueing of visuospatial attention, EEG, and multivariate pattern analysis to examine where and when the effects of exogenous and endogenous attention were maximally different and maximally similar. Critically, multivariate pattern analysis provided new insights by examining whether classifiers trained to decode the cueing effect for one attention process (e.g., exogenous attention) can successfully decode the cueing effect for the other attention process (e.g., endogenous attention). These analyses uncovered differential and overlapping effects between exogenous and endogenous attention. Next, we combined principal component analyses, single-trial ERPs, and mediation analysis to determine whether these effects facilitate perception, as indexed by the behavioral spatial cueing effects of exogenous and endogenous attention. This approach revealed that three EEG components shape the cueing effects of exogenous and endogenous attention at various times after target onset. Altogether, our study provides a comprehensive account about how overlapping and differential processes of endogenous and exogenous relate to perceptual facilitation in the context of visuospatial attention.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".