Object spatial certainty as a measure of spatial variability and its influence on attention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Some objects have specific places where you can expect them to be found (e.g., toothbrush), while others vary widely (e.g., cat). Previous studies have pointed to the importance of the spatial associations between objects and scenes in informing search strategies. However, the assumptions about objects having a specific location that they are typically found does not take into account the variability inherent in the spatial associations of objects. In the current study, we proposed a new way of measuring this variability and investigated its effects on attention and visual search. First, we developed the Object Spatial Certainty Index by having participants rate where 150 objects were expected to be found in scenes; the index provides a relative measure that ranks these objects from the most spatially predictable (almost always found in one region of the scene, e.g., boots) to the least spatially predictable (equally likely to be in every region of the scene, e.g., plant). In two experiments, we examined how these variations affected search by manipulating whether the targets were either High Certainty or Low Certainty. Our findings demonstrate that the variability of spatial association of objects significantly affected how effectively scene context influences search performance.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".