MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995399409 · doi:10.1080/13506285.2014.976604

Separating value from selection frequency in rapid reaching biases to visual targets

2014· article· en· W1995399409 on OpenAlexaff
Craig S. Chapman, Jason P. Gallivan, James T. Enns

Bibliographic record

VenueVisual Cognition · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaQueen's UniversityUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologySet (abstract data type)Task (project management)Value (mathematics)Cognitive psychologySelection (genetic algorithm)PreferenceSocial psychologyStatisticsArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.148
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.272 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations29
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVisual CognitionSame topicNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesFrench-language works237,207