The role of selective attention in perceptual switching
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When viewing ambiguous figures, individuals can exert selective attentional control over their perceptual reversibility behaviour (e.g., Strüber & Stadler, 1999). In the current study, we replicated this finding but we also found that ambiguous figures containing faces are processed quite differently from those containing objects. Furthermore, inverting an ambiguous figure containing faces (i.e., Rubin’s vase-face) resulted in an “inversion effect”. These findings highlight the importance of considering how we attend to faces in addition to how we perceive and process faces. Describing the perceptual reversal patterns of individuals in the general population allowed us to draw comparisons to behaviours exhibited by individuals with Asperger Syndrome (AS). The group data suggested that these individuals were less affected by figure type or stimulus inversion. Examination of individual scores, moreover, revealed that the majority of participants with AS showed an atypical reversal pattern, particularly with ambiguous figures containing faces, and an atypical inversion effect. Together, our results show that ambiguous figures can be a very valuable tool for examining face processing mechanisms in the general population and other distinct groups of individuals, particularly those diagnosed with AS.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".