phd researcher
nest trails by topic. pin the claim that matters. read the argument back.
trails that mirror the thesis
trails· 9
all trails
▼thesisdiscrete· 0
▼lit reviewdiscrete· 0
attentiondiscrete· 47
memorydiscrete· 31
▼experimentsdiscrete· 0
exp 1: cueingdiscrete· 12
exp 2: dual-taskdiscrete· 9
chapter 3: resultsdiscrete· 6
chapter 3 draftcontinuous· 1
untrailed
untrailed
reading by topic, experiments by study, the draft beside the notes. nest as deep as the work goes.
one reading day
what matters now
read: posner & petersen 1990
classic three-network model. their "alerting" maps onto what i have been calling baseline arousal. the disagreement i care about: is alerting separable from orienting.
↗ pinned
alerting and orienting dissociate under load. the hinge for ch.3.
what settled
today is one paper. pin the claim that matters. the rest sinks.
the argument, in one scroll
memory · pins · attention · 40
alltextlistsstructurechartscodefiles
textalerting and orienting dissociate under load↻ ↓ ×
posner's split, and exp 2 reproduces it behaviorally. ch.3 leans on this.
tableeffect sizes: cueing studies↻ ↓ ×
| study | cohen's d | n |
|---|---|---|
| posner 1980 | 0.62 | 24 |
| jonides 1981 | 0.41 | 18 |
| exp 1 (mine) | 0.55 | 32 |
flowchartthe three-network model↻ ↓ ×
alerting→orienting→executive
textmy data breaks the single-bottleneck account↻ ↓ ×
exp 2: dual-task cost tracks perceptual load, not item count. one bottleneck cannot predict that.
blocksattention follow-ups↻ ↓ ×
✓code the blink data
✓email co-author re: stimuli
re-run cueing at longer soa (200, 400ms)
draft the methods paragraph
blocksopen threads↻ ↓ ×
•is alerting separable from orienting, or a paradigm confound?
•does the advantage survive without the spatial cue?
•fold the memory trail into ch.3, or hold for ch.4?
📎 fileposner & petersen 1990.pdf↻ ↓ ×
annual review of neuroscience 13. the source for the split. annotated, pp.25-42.
pin × trail. every claim you kept, with the tables, diagrams, and sources beside it.