Separating value from selection frequency in rapid reaching biases to visual targets
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stimuli associated with positive rewards in one task often receive preferential processing in a subsequent task, even when those associations are no longer relevant. Here we use a rapid reaching task to investigate these biases. In Experiment 1 we first replicated the learning procedure of Raymond and O'Brien (2009), for a set of arbitrary shapes that varied in value (positive, negative) and probability (20%, 80%). In a subsequent task, participants rapidly reached toward one of two shapes, except now the previously learned associations were irrelevant. As in the previous studies, we found significant reach biases toward shapes previously associated with a high probable, positive outcome. Unexpectedly, we also found a bias toward shapes previously associated with a low probable, negative outcome. Closer inspection of the learning task revealed a potential second factor that might account for these results; since a low probable negative shape was always paired with a high probable negative shape, it was selected with disproportionate frequency. To assess how selection frequency and reward value might both contribute to reaching biases we performed a second experiment. The results of this experiment at a group level replicated the reach-bias toward positively rewarding stimuli, but also revealed a separate bias toward stimuli that had been more frequently selected. At the level of individual participants, we observed a variety of preference profiles, with some participants biased primarily by reward value, others by frequency, and a few actually biased away from both highly rewarding and high frequency targets. These findings highlight that: (1) rapid reaching provides a sensitive readout of preferential processing; (2) target reward value and target selection frequency are separate sources of bias; and (3) group-level analyses in complex decision-making tasks can obscure important and varied individual differences in preference profiles.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it