The effect of covert auditory attention in multiple target aiming: kinematic evidence
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 theories of attention and motor planning postulate that both process are tightly coupled. The present study examined these theories in covert auditory attention. In two experiments, participants (N=24) reached to four target locations in the presence of a no-cue, neutral cue, 50/50, and 80/20 auditory cue. In the first experiment the cue was presented at movement initiation, while in the second experiment it was presented 130ms following movement initiation. Neutral condition cues were presented from both piezoelectric buzzers (right and left). Predictive condition cues predicted the target location on 50% or 80% of the trials. Movement trajectories were collected using an Optotrak 3D investigator. Performance and kinematic variables were analyzed, including trajectory deviations. With lateralized cues, the point at which a deviation toward the target occurred earlier in both experiments. Therefore, the presence of a random lateralized sound affected action from both a crossmodal attentional and multisensory integration perspective.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it