MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130169456 · doi:10.1016/j.cogsci.2003.10.005

Characterizing perceptual learning with external noise

2004· article· en· W2130169456 on OpenAlex

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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueCognitive Science · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsPerceptual learningNoise (video)PerceptionObserver (physics)Context (archaeology)Masking (illustration)Computer scienceSIGNAL (programming language)Detection theoryArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Speech recognitionPsychologyPhysicsImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Performance in perceptual tasks often improves with practice. This effect is known as ‘perceptual learning,’ and it has been the source of a great deal of interest and debate over the course of the last century. Here, we consider the effects of perceptual learning within the context of signal detection theory. According to signal detection theory, the improvements that take place with perceptual learning can be due to increases in internal signal strength or decreases in internal noise. We used a combination of psychophysical techniques (external noise masking and double-pass response consistency) that involve corrupting stimuli with externally added noise to discriminate between the effects of changes in signal and noise as observers learned to identify sets of unfamiliar visual patterns. Although practice reduced thresholds by as much as a factor of 14, internal noise remained virtually fixed throughout training, indicating learning served to predominantly increase the strength of the internal signal. We further examined the specific nature of the changes that took place in signal strength by correlating the externally added noise with observer's decisions across trials (response classification). This technique allowed us to visualize some of the changes that took place in the linear templates used by the observers as learning occurred, as well as test the predictions of a linear template-matching model. Taken together, the results of our experiments offer important new theoretical constraints on models of perceptual learning.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.758

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.268 · 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