The preference of probability over negative values in action selection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has previously been found that when participants are presented with a pair of motor prospects, they can select the prospect with the largest maximum expected gain (MEG). Many of those decisions, however, were trivial because of large differences in MEG between the prospects. The purpose of the present study was to explore participants' preferences when making non-trivial decisions between two motor prospects. Participants were presented with pairs of prospects that: 1) differed in MEG with either only the values or only the probabilities differing between the prospects; and 2) had similar MEG with one prospect having a larger probability of hitting the target and a higher penalty value and the other prospect a smaller probability of hitting the target but a lower penalty value. In different experiments, participants either had 400 ms or 2000 ms to decide between the prospects. It was found that participants chose the configuration with the larger MEG more often when the probability varied between prospects than when the value varied. In pairs with similar MEGs, participants preferred a larger probability of hitting the target over a smaller penalty value. These results indicate that participants prefer probability information over negative value information in a motor selection task.
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 | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".