THE EVOLUTION OF PSYCHOPHYSICS: FROM SENSATION TO COGNITION AND BACK AGAIN
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For over a century, psychophysicists have attempted to understand the processes by which physical properties of stimuli are mapped into mental representations. Early investigations followed a model in which physical energy was transduced into neural impulses, with the information in these impulses being conveyed to the central nervous system where they gave rise to sensations (a bottom-up information-processing model). Even when it was recognized that there were interactions among stimuli (e.g., center-surround contrast in vision), these interactions were assumed to occur early in the information-processing stream (e.g., on-center and off-surround receptive fields). Hence, the implicit bias towards a bottom-up process remained. Within the last 40-50 years, however, it has become apparent that top-down factors HJ H[SHFWDWLRQV DQG D SHUVRQ¶V FRJQLWLYH DELOLWLHV HJ ZRUNLQJPHPRU\\ FDSDFLW \\ DOVR affect how information is gathered and processed. These recent developments have forced us to refine our models to include sensory-cognitive interactions. Psychophysics began as an attempt to link the physical dimensions of stimuli to their mental representations. Hence, for over a century, psychophysicists have attempted to
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".