Are two hands better than one? A follow-up to Davoli & Brockmole's(2012) "shielding" effect
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
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 0.005 |
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