The attentional blink: Invreasing target salience provides no evidence for resource depletion. A commentary on Dux, Asplund and Marois
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The authors have argued elsewhere that the attentional blink (AB; i.e., reduced target detection shortly after presentation of an earlier target) arises from blocked or disrupted perceptual input in response to distractors presented between the targets.When targets replace the intervening distractors, so that three targets (T1, T2, and T3) are presented sequentially, performance on T2 and T3 improves.Dux, Asplund, and Marois (2008) argued that T3 performance improves at the expense of T1, and thus provides evidence for resource depletion.They showed that when T1 is made more salient (and presumably draws more resources), an AB for T3 appears to reemerge.These findings can be better explained, however, by (1) the relationship between T1 and T2 (not T1 and T3) and ( 2) differential salience for T3 in the long-lag condition of Dux et al. 's study.In conclusion, the Dux et al. study does not present a severe challenge to input control theories of the AB.ences and Engineering Research Council of Canada to T.M.
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 | 0.010 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.038 | 0.056 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
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".