Reach target selection in humans using ambiguous decision cues containing variable amounts of conflicting sensory evidence supporting each target choice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Human subjects chose between two color-coded reach targets using multicolored checkerboard-like decision cues (DCs) that presented variable amounts of conflicting sensory evidence supporting both target choices. Different DCs contained different numbers of small squares of the two target colors. The most ambiguous DCs contained nearly equal numbers of squares of both target colors. The subjects reached as soon as they selected a target after the appearance of the DC ("choose-and-go" task). The choice behavior of the subjects showed many similarities to prior studies using other stimulus properties (e.g., visual motion coherence, brightness), including progressively longer response times and higher target-choice error rates for more ambiguous DCs. However, certain trends in their choice behavior could not be fully captured by simple drift-diffusion models. Allowing the subjects to view the DCs for a period of time before presenting the targets ("match-to-sample" task) resulted in much shorter response times overall, but also revealed a reluctance of subjects to commit to a decision about the predominant color of the more ambiguous DCs during the initial extended observation period. Model processing and simulation analyses suggest that the subjects might adjust the dynamics of their decision-making process on a trial-to-trial basis in response to the variable level of ambiguous and conflicting evidence in different DCs between trials.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".