MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386249062 · doi:10.1167/jov.23.9.5506

Attentional control settings determine not only what captures attention, but where attention goes once captured

2023· article· en· W4386249062 on OpenAlexaff
Samantha Joubran, Anna Katzatchkova, Fatima Abboud, Naseem Al-Aidroos

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCued speechCognitive psychologyPsychologyFixation (population genetics)Stimulus (psychology)SalientVisual attentionTask (project management)Visual searchAttentional controlSelective attentionComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceCognitionNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Is attention automatically captured to the location of salient stimuli, or is capture under our control? The best evidence that capture can be controlled comes from contingent capture in attention cueing tasks: When looking for a visual target (e.g., a red target), distracting stimuli only capture attention if they resemble the target (e.g., a task-irrelevant red pre-cue). Put differently, what observers are doing in the target display determines which types of features will capture attention in the cue display. Here we assessed another level of control. What participants are doing in the target display may also determine where attention goes in response to the cue in the cue display. This prediction draws from a recent demonstration that spatial attention can be cued to arbitrary locations based on implicitly learned associations between features and locations (Girardi & Nico, 2017). In the present experiments, participants completed a cueing task where on every trial a target was presented to the left and right of fixation, and a separate, coloured stimulus indicated which target the participant should report (e.g., red meant report left target; green report right). Thus, the target display created an association between colours and shifting attention to the left or right. Across three experiments, task-irrelevant, non-predictive pre-cues captured attention to the location associated with their colour (e.g., red cues captured attention to the left location) regardless of where the cue physically appeared in space. These experiments also investigated and ruled out two alternative explanations based on spatially specific attentional control settings and colour priming. Instead, the present findings support the conclusion that attentional control settings do not only determine what types of stimuli should capture visual spatial attention, but also define where attention should go when captured.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.299 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of VisionSame topicNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesFrench-language works237,207