Bibliographic record
Abstract
Much is known about the temporal consequences of allocating attention in the visual field; targets are detected faster at cued locations. The spatial consequences, however, are much less understood. One such spatial consequence is the attentional repulsion effect (ARE), where a brief peripheral cue appears to shift the location of a Vernier stimulus in the opposite direction to where the peripheral cue was located. It has been suggested that the ARE interacts with dorsal stream processing, although it is not known whether object information carried by the ventral stream is also affected. The present study investigates if the ARE influences the shape perception of objects. The first experiment used peripheral cues and showed that a diamond shaped object presented at fixation appeared skewed in the direction opposite the cue. To examine if the ARE for objects is limited to exogenous peripheral cues, two additional experiments were conducted with central gaze and arrow cues, respectively. These central cues, that generate reflexive shifts of attention, were not found to generate AREs. Overall, the present study illustrates that the ARE influences ventral stream shape perception when peripheral reflexive cues are used, but not for central reflexive cues. The ARE could be due to receptive field shrinking, where the peripheral cues capture attention, which in turn sharpens the spatial tuning of the receptive fields in that area. The consequence of this is that receptive fields opposite the cue become spread out and objects therefore appear distorted.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.010 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".