Classification images reveal decision variables and strategies in forced choice tasks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite decades of research, there is still uncertainty about how people make simple decisions about perceptual stimuli. Most theories assume that perceptual decisions are based on decision variables, which are internal variables that encode task-relevant information. However, decision variables are usually considered to be theoretical constructs that cannot be measured directly, and this often makes it difficult to test theories of perceptual decision making. Here we show how to measure decision variables on individual trials, and we use these measurements to test theories of perceptual decision making more directly than has previously been possible. We measure classification images, which are estimates of templates that observers use to extract information from stimuli. We then calculate the dot product of these classification images with the stimuli to estimate observers' decision variables. Finally, we reconstruct each observer's "decision space," a map that shows the probability of the observer's responses for all values of the decision variables. We use this method to examine decision strategies in two-alternative forced choice (2AFC) tasks, for which there are several competing models. In one experiment, the resulting decision spaces support the difference model, a classic theory of 2AFC decisions. In a second experiment, we find unexpected decision spaces that are not predicted by standard models of 2AFC decisions, and that suggest intrinsic uncertainty or soft thresholding. These experiments give new evidence regarding observers' strategies in 2AFC tasks, and they show how measuring decision variables can answer long-standing questions about perceptual decision making.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".