Contextual expectations in the real-world modulate low-frequency neural oscillations
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
Objects in expected locations are recognised faster and more accurately than objects in incongruent environments. This congruency effect has a neural component, with increased activity for objects in incongruent environments. Studies have increasingly shown differences between neural processes in realistic environments and tasks, and neural processes in the laboratory. Here, we aimed to push the boundaries of traditional cognitive neuroscience by tracking the congruency effect for objects in real-world environments, outside of the laboratory. We investigated how neural activity is modulated when objects are placed in real environments using augmented reality while recording mobile EEG. Participants approached, viewed, and rated how congruent they found the objects with the environment. We found significant differences in ERPs and higher theta-band power for objects in incongruent contexts than objects in congruent contexts. This demonstrates that real-world contexts impact how objects are processed, and that mobile brain imaging and augmented reality are effective tools to study cognition in the wild.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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