Dichotic listening with syllables: Effects of forced attention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compares results from three dichotic listening experiments involving different methods of attention control. In each experiment, participants completed a dichotic listening task requiring two responses to syllables and we noted the order of report for the responses. In Experiment 1, participants reported from a specific ear first in trial blocks. In Experiment 2, an arrow cue indicated the ear of first report. In Experiment 3, a tone was presented to the ear of first report. Free recall in which participants reported the two syllables in any order was also included as a baseline. Results indicated a tendency to report from the right ear first in free recall, producing more reports from that ear, reflecting a right ear advantage (REA). In all cueing conditions, an overall REA emerged but it shifted to a left ear advantage (LEA: more reports from the left ear) when the left ear was cued. Additionally, larger laterality scores ([Right - Left]/[Right + Left]) for the conditions where the right ear was cued, relative to where the left ear was cued, suggests that attention control is limited in overriding the structural auditory asymmetries. We discuss the implications of these results for models of dichotic listening.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".