MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2049484799 · doi:10.1167/14.10.357

The effect of feedback on 3D multiple object tracking performance and its transferability to other attentional tasks

2014· article· en· W2049484799 on OpenAlex
Chiara Perico, Domenico Tullo, K. Perrotti, Jocelyn Faubert, Armando Bertone

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychological and Educational Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTask (project management)CognitionPsychologyCognitive psychologyAttentional controlTransferabilityComputer scienceMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Attentional processes play an integral role in learning, affecting performance on most cognitive tasks. In addition, feedback - instant information delivered to the individual that guides their subsequent behavior in relevant situations - plays a critical role in the efficiency and quality of learning. However, its effects are not often empirically assessed. Multiple Object Tracking (MOT) tasks were developed to objectively assess real world attention, and have been used as cognitive training paradigms geared at improving attentional abilities. With training, there is a significant improvement in MOT performance; however, little is known about the transferability of attentional capacities from MOT tasks to similar cognitive tasks. The goal of this study was thus to assess whether performance on attentional capacities acquired during training on a 3D MOT task are transferrable to other measures of attention. The role of feedback was also investigated to determine whether performance, and its subsequent transferability to other measures, is affected by feedback. Forty typically developing adults participated in 4 testing sessions on consecutive days. On day 1, intellectual and attentional abilities were assessed along with a baseline measure of MOT without feedback. Participants were split into 2 experimental groups and assessed for three subsequent days (days 2 through 4): one group received feedback during the MOT task trials; the other group received no feedback. On day 4, all participants were re-assessed on the same attentional measures as well as the MOT to determine improvements from day 1. MOT performance resulted significantly higher for the feedback group, as defined by an increased speed threshold for tracking 4 out of 8 items. The feedback group also revealed better transferability to other cognitive tasks. The results indicate that feedback is an important component during a learning regiment and that it may affect transferability of cognitive abilities. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2014

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.738
Threshold uncertainty score0.159

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.354 · 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