Contrast-reversal abolishes perceptual learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We tested the effects of contrast reversal on perceptual learning in a 10AFC texture identification task. Four groups of subjects performed the task on two consecutive days. One group saw the same textures on both days, whereas three other groups saw novel, rotated (180 deg), or contrast-reversed textures on the second day. Response accuracy improved during the first day in all groups. Accuracy decreased significantly at the start of Day 2 in the groups who saw novel, rotated or contrast-reversed textures, but not in the group who saw the same textures. Moreover, the drop in performance was the same in the groups who saw novel, rotated, and contrast-reversed textures. Control experiments showed that making subjects aware of the stimulus transformations at the start of either the first or second day did not alter the results. Hence, the effects of contrast-reversal and 180 deg rotation on the generalization of learning were the same as the effect of using novel stimuli, and knowledge of the stimulus transformation did not reduce their effects. We consider the implications of this pattern of results for the neural mechanisms recruited during the identification and learning of two-dimensional visual patterns.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".