A Reevaluation of the Electrophysiological Correlates of Expert Object Processing
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Subordinate-level object processing is regarded as a hallmark of perceptual expertise. However, the relative contribution of subordinate- and basic-level category experience in the acquisition of perceptual expertise has not been clearly delineated. In this study, participants learned to classify wading birds and owls at either the basic (e.g., wading bird, owl) or the subordinate (e.g., egret, snowy owl) level. After 6 days of training, behavioral results showed that subordinate-level but not basic-level training improved subordinate discrimination of trained exemplars, novel exemplars, and exemplars from novel species. Event-related potentials indicated that both basic- and subordinate-level training enhanced the early N170 component, but only subordinate-level training amplified the later N250 component. These results are consistent with models positing separate basic and subordinate learning mechanisms, and, contrary to perspectives attempting to explain visual expertise solely in terms of subordinate-level processing, suggest that expertise enhances neural responses of both basic and subordinate processing.
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 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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it