Spatial but not temporal orienting of attention enhances the temporal acuity of human peripheral vision
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 temporal acuity of a sensory system determines its capacity to detect delays between events, which enables following events in time and adapting behaviors accordingly. Whether and how voluntary attention drives visual temporal acuity is still unclear, especially in peripheral vision where attention is critical to avoid missing information. The present study aims at 1) evaluating whether cue-based spatial and temporal orientation of visual attention modulates the temporal acuity in peripheral vision, 2) assessing to what extent these modulations rely on shared or distinct attentional mechanisms, and 3) exploring whether these modulations are cumulative or independent from each other. Forty participants performed an asynchrony detection task in immersive virtual reality whilst electroencephalographic and pupillary dynamics were recorded. We found reductions of pupil constriction during the processing of attentional cues, suggesting that the pupil diameter represents a readout of the formation of spatiotemporal expectations. We further found that pre-target oscillatory dynamics in posterior theta and alpha bands are suppressed by both spatial and temporal orienting of attention, with cumulative effects, thus providing evidence for integrated mechanisms of spatial and temporal attention. Yet, despite these modulations, only explicit spatial orienting enhances the sensitivity to asynchronies. This highlights that explicit endogenous attention directed to space-but not to time-increases the temporal acuity under spatial uncertainty in peripheral vision. Overall, these results cast unambiguous doubts on the accepted trade-off that spatial attention meliorates spatial visual acuity while impeding temporal visual acuity, and thus call for the further refinement of models of visual attention.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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