Frequency of filler items does not modulate the emotional attentional blink
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
In the emotional attentional blink (EAB; emotion-induced blindness), emotional distractors impair report of subsequent targets in rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) streams of fillers. Recent research demonstrated that the EAB is surprisingly weak. Because RSVP includes serial abrupt onset fillers which otherwise might capture attention, we hypothesized that participants might broadly suppress stimulus-driven attention and enhance goal-driven control to allow for target detection. Such suppression could in turn reduce emotional capture and the EAB. The present study thus compared the EAB in typical RSVP tasks to that in “skeletal” tasks with most fillers omitted, reasoning that reducing the number of fillers would reduce the likelihood of broad suppression of capture, thus enhancing the EAB in skeletal tasks. However, similar EABs were observed in both tasks within-participants, ruling out this hypothesis. This research is also, to the best of our knowledge, the first demonstration of an EAB using a skeletal paradigm.
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 | 0.000 | 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 it