Effects of virtual reality working memory task difficulty on the passive processing of irrelevant auditory stimuli
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The virtual reality (VR) environment is claimed to be highly immersive. Participants may thus be potentially unaware of their real, external world. The present study presented irrelevant auditory stimuli while participants were engaged in an easy or difficult visual working memory (WM) task within the VR environment. The difficult WM task should be immersive and require many cognitive resources, thus few will be available for the processing of task-irrelevant auditory stimuli. Sixteen young adults wore a 3D head-mounted VR device. In the easy WM task, the stimuli were nameable objects. In the difficult WM task, the stimuli were abstract objects that could not be easily named. A novel paradigm using event-related potentials (ERPs) was implemented to examine the feasibility of quantifying the extent of processing of task-irrelevant stimuli occurring outside of the VR environment. Auditory stimuli irrelevant to the WM task were presented concurrently at every 1.5 or 12 s in separate conditions. Performance on the WM task varied with task difficulty, with accuracy significantly lower during the difficult task. The auditory ERPs consisted of N1 and a later P2/P3a deflection which were larger when the auditory stimuli were presented slowly. ERPs were unaffected by task difficulty, but significant correlations were found. N1 and P2/P3a amplitudes were smallest when performance on the Easy WM task was highest. It is possible that even the easy WM task was so immersive and required many processing resources that few were available for the co-processing of the task-irrelevant auditory stimuli.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".