Influences of Object-Based Selection on the Relation Between Attention and Visual Temporal Resolution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Attended objects are perceived differently than unattended objects. Spatial attention is consistently associated with an enhancement in spatial resolution. However, the relation between spatial attention and temporal resolution is not as straightforward. Some studies have shown that attention enhances temporal resolution, and others have shown that attention degrades temporal resolution. The motivation of the present work was to investigate the source of this discrepancy. In particular, the research herein examines the hypothesis that attention degrades temporal resolution when the target stimuli are easily integrated (i.e., according to the Gestalt principles of grouping), and that attention enhances temporal resolution when the targets are easy to perceptually segregate. Temporal resolution was assessed by the mean just noticeable difference (the minimum temporal interval in milliseconds required by observers to perform the task at 75% accuracy) in a visual temporal order judgment (TOJ) task. Trials involved the presentation of two targets, at randomly varying stimulus onset asynchronies, and observers reported which one they perceived first. The primary research questions concerned the effect of perceptual grouping on temporal resolution, and the influence of attention on that relation. Grouping processes were manipulated using a variety of Gestalt principles and attention was investigated under conditions of automatically-and voluntarily-driven orienting. Three main findings emerged: temporal resolution is worse for grouped than ungrouped targets; attention modulates the effect of grouping on temporal resolution on a continuum - strong grouping effects produce large impairments on temporal resolution, and weaker grouping effects produce smaller impairments; and automatic and voluntary spatial orienting affect the relation between grouping and temporal resolution differently - automatic orienting augments the relation, while voluntary orienting does not. I conclude that the discrepant findings in the previous research are due to object-based factors pertaining to the target stimuli and propose an object-based theory of temporal perception.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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 teacher head, 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".