A Search for an Affective Index of Inhibition in the Narrowing of Attention Reveals Interactive Effects of Congruence and Exposure on Stimulus Liking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Narrowing our focus of attention is critical to achieve goals and avoid threats. We contrast between two competing hypotheses to test if inhibition underlies this process: amplification-only versus amplification-plus-inhibition hypothesis. Because inhibition is associated with negative evaluations, we combined a global/local perception task with an affective evaluation task across three experiments (total N = 364) to assess whether stimulus ratings were more negative for trials requiring narrowed attention (local) than trials with broadened attention (global). With no significant effects of attention on stimulus liking (Exp. 1, 2 & 3), our results fail to support either hypothesis. However, there was a robust effect of perceptual congruency—congruent items received more positive ratings than incongruent items and experienced a significant decline from the first (baseline) to the second encounter (post-task). This effect cannot be attributed to stimulus exposure frequency (Exp. 3) and is independent of the global/local attention task (Exp. 4).
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".