Effect of Feedback Mode and Task Difficulty on Quality of Timing Decisions in a Zero-Sum Game
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective was to investigate the interaction between the mode of performance outcome feedback and task difficulty on timing decisions (i.e., when to act). BACKGROUND: Feedback is widely acknowledged to affect task performance. However, the extent to which feedback display mode and its impact on timing decisions is moderated by task difficulty remains largely unknown. METHOD: Participants repeatedly engaged a zero-sum game involving silent duels with a computerized opponent and were given visual performance feedback after each engagement. They were sequentially tested on three different levels of task difficulty (low, intermediate, and high) in counterbalanced order. Half received relatively simple "inside view" binary outcome feedback, and the other half received complex "outside view" hit rate probability feedback. The key dependent variables were response time (i.e., time taken to make a decision) and survival outcome. RESULTS: When task difficulty was low to moderate, participants were more likely to learn and perform better from hit rate probability feedback than binary outcome feedback. However, better performance with hit rate feedback exacted a higher cognitive cost manifested by higher decision response time. CONCLUSION: The beneficial effect of hit rate probability feedback on timing decisions is partially moderated by task difficulty. APPLICATION: Performance feedback mode should be judiciously chosen in relation to task difficulty for optimal performance in tasks involving timing decisions.
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 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".