Two‐dimensional psychophysics in chickens and humans: Comparative aspects of perceptual relativity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Whereas the contextual basis of psychophysical responding is well founded, the compound influence of sensory and perceptual frames of reference constitutes a challenging issue in comparative one- and multidimensional psychophysics (e.g., Sarris, 2004, 2006). We refer to previous investigations, which tested the assumption that the chicken's relational choice in the one-dimensional case is systematically altered by context conditions similar to the findings stemming from human participants. In this paper mainly the context-dependent stimulus coding was investigated for the important, but largely neglected, two-dimensional case in humans and chickens. Three strategies were predicted for the generalization of size discriminations, which had been learned in a different color context. In two experiments, which varied in the testing procedure, both species demonstrated profound contextual effects in psychophysics; they differed, however, in the way the information from either dimension was used: Chickens throughout used color as a cue to separate the respective size discriminations and generalizations. Whereas humans predominantly generalized according to size information only or according to absolute stimulus properties, the chickens showed some important species-specific differences. Common and heterogeneous findings of this line of comparative research in multidimensional psychophysics are presented and discussed in various ways.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".