MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409978292 · doi:10.1163/22134808-bja10147

Call Me Maybe: Effects of Notification Modality on Visual Sustained Attention

2025· article· en· W4409978292 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMultisensory Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicPersonal Information Management and User Behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyTask (project management)Modality (human–computer interaction)Visual attentionCognitive psychologyAudiologyVariety (cybernetics)PerceptionNeuroscienceHuman–computer interactionComputer scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Smartphone use has been examined in a variety of contexts, including their influence on sustained attention. Most importantly, notifications received while completing the Sustained Attention to Response Task (SART) have led to deficits in sustained attention performance. The present study re-examined this phenomenon by differentiating audio and visual notifications, to examine their individual influence. It was hypothesized that trials that notifications were received would result in slower reaction times across both notification types. Data were collected using the SART in both the fixed and random conditions. Visual pop-up notifications were sent for half the trials, while auditory cues were sent for the other half. Results were in accordance with previous findings, demonstrating an overall effect on sustained attention performance. Furthermore, visual notifications led to more errors than the auditory condition.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.782
Threshold uncertainty score0.669

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.403
GPT teacher head0.571
Teacher spread0.169 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it