Are two hands better than one? A follow-up to Davoli & Brockmole's(2012) "shielding" effect
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Davoli & Brockmole (2012; AP&P), in the context of a classic Eriksen “flanker” task, observed that positioning one’s hands around a target item reduced interference from incongruent flankers, despite the flanking items still being perfectly visible. Herein we asked whether this “shielding” effect would still be observed if instead participants only placed a single hand to one side of the target. More importantly, if shielding is still observed, is it sensitive to where flankers appear in relation to the hand (i.e. palm or backhand)? To do this, we had participants perform a flanker task while varying which hand was placed on-screen, as well as a no-hand control. Critically, within each trial we allowed flankers to individually vary in their compatibility with the target (ex: incongruent flanker on left, congruent on right). This allowed us to probe whether the degree of interference (and possible reductions thereof) elicited by incongruent flankers was modulated by their position with respect to the hand. Our results are discussed from an embodied cognition perspective in relation to classical attentional concepts such as orienting and set.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.001 |
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".