Does the output form of inhibition of return operate at or after the bottleneck?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inhibition of return (IOR) refers to the longer reaction times (RTs) to targets presented at previously cued, fixated or attended locations. It has been suggested that there are two distinct forms of IOR. The input form, generated when the reflexive oculomotor system is suppressed, affects the sensory/perceptual processing. The output form, generated when the reflexive oculomotor system is not suppressed, biases responding. It has been demonstrated, using the locus of slack logic associated with the psychological refractory period (Pashler, 1998),that the input form of IOR operates on a pre-bottleneck stage of processing, Kavyani et al. (2017). Using the same logic, Klein et al. (2020) demonstrated that the output form of IOR operates at or after the bottleneck. Building on the methods of Klein et al. the present study used PRP paradigm to determine whether the output form of IOR operates at or after the bottleneck. The output form of IOR was generated by an initial saccade from a peripheral location to a central fixation point. Task 1 consisted of a manual response indicating the location (right/left) of a subsequent visual stimulus. Task 2 required participants to discriminate the frequency (high/low) of an auditory stimulus and make a key-press response with their other hand. The targets (T1 and T2) for the two tasks were presented in close succession with 200, 400 and 800 ms target-target onset asynchronies (TTOAs). Responses to T1 were delayed by IOR and responses to T2 were substantially delayed when the TTOA was brief. Statistical analysis of the amount of carry over of the IOR effect experienced by Task 1 onto the RTs for Task 2 strongly suggest that the output form of IOR operates after the bottleneck. Nevertheless, aspects of the results could be interpreted to support a weaker influence of IOR operating also at the bottleneck stage of processing.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".