Visual working memory intrusions caused by salient onsets, with and without spatial distraction
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
The visually complex environments around us make it difficult for our brains to select relevant information while ignoring irrelevant items. Thus, our brain uses various mechanisms to encode relevant information into our visual working memory (VWM), while filters prevent irrelevant information from being encoded. Dube and Golomb (2021) recently showed that spatial distraction not only captures external spatial attention, but also disrupts non-spatial attentional filters responsible for gating access to VWM, resulting in the encoding of irrelevant features at the time of capture (WM intrusions). However, is spatial distraction required to disrupt these attentional filters and cause WM intrusions, or is the presence of a salient stimulus alone enough? Participants performed two consecutive search tasks on each trial. In search 1 (S1), participants located a target ‘T’ among non-target ‘L’s presented within task-irrelevant colored squares. In 40% of the trials, a salient cue (white border) abruptly flashed around the target square (onset at 50ms, lasting 100ms), serving as a salient visual event while keeping spatial attention focused on the target. In search 2 (S2), participants located a uniquely oriented Landolt-C. The stimuli in S2 were all white, except one color singleton that either matched the color of the S1 target, color of a S1 non-target, or novel color. We tested if the S1 salient cue would cause its associated, task-irrelevant color to intrude into VWM and drive memory-driven capture in S2 (slower RTs when the singleton matched). Despite no disruption to spatial attention in S1 (S1 RTs were faster on cue-present vs. cue-absent trials), memory intrusions were triggered by the salient cue: on cue-present trials, RTs were longer when the S2 singleton color matched the S1 target square, compared to non-target matches and cue-absent matches. This suggests that perceptually salient cues alone can disrupt attentional filters and cause WM intrusions.
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