Is gaze cuing more like endogenous or exogenous orienting?
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
People shift their attention in the direction of another person's gaze. This phenomenon, called gaze cuing, shares properties with purely endogenous (i.e., "deliberate") and purely exogenous (i.e., "reflexive") control of spatial attention. For example, as with purely endogenous orienting, gaze cues appear at visual fixation; yet, as with purely exogenous orienting, gaze cues elicit shifts of attention rapidly after their appearance. Prior experiments have shown that when controlled endogenously versus exogenously, the effects of attention upon the processing of targets are dramatically different. Briand and Klein (1987; see also Briand, 1998) showed that endogenous orienting is additive with opportunities for illusory conjunctions, whereas exogenous orienting is interactive. Klein (1994) showed that endogenous orienting is interactive with nonspatial expectancies, whereas exogenous orienting is additive. In the present project, we applied this double-dissociation strategy to attention controlled by gaze cues. In Experiment 1, gaze cuing effects (in accuracy) were additive with opportunities for illusory conjunctions (akin to endogenous control), whereas in Experiment 2, gaze cuing was additive with the nonspatial expectancy effect (akin to exogenous orienting). Therefore, in the nature of its effects upon performance, gaze cuing functions like a hybrid of endogenous and exogenous orienting. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it