Examining the role of action-driven attention in ensemble processing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ensemble processing allows the visual system to condense visual information into useful summary statistics (e.g., average size), thereby overcoming capacity limitations to visual working memory and attention. To examine the role of attention in ensemble processing, we conducted three experiments using a novel paradigm that merged the action effect (a manipulation of attention) and ensemble processing. Participants were instructed to make a simple action if the feature of a cue word corresponded to a subsequent shape. Immediately after, they were shown an ensemble display of eight ovals of varying sizes and were asked to report either the average size of all ovals or the size of a single oval from the set. In Experiments 1 and 2, participants were cued with a task-relevant feature, and in Experiment 3, participants were cued with a task-irrelevant feature. Overall, the task-relevant cues that elicited an action influenced reports of average size in the ensemble phase more than the cues that were passively viewed, whereas task-irrelevant cues did not bias the reports of average size. The results of this study suggest that attention influences ensemble processing only when it is directed toward a task-relevant feature.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".