Advance information suppresses co-representation in a joint response-cueing task
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine whether social co-representation (joint action) effects (Sebanz et al., 2003), extended to a shared-task situation where response-relevant information was provided in advance to co-actors. Participants performed a modified version of the 4-choice spatial response-cueing task (Miller, 1982) in which the target could appear in one of four response positions normally assigned to the index and middle fingers of the two hands. A precue indicated full, hand, finger, ambiguous, or no information. Participants completed the task in either a solo or joint ("social") condition. In the solo condition, participants were assigned to respond to targets that appeared in one of the two positions assigned to them. In the social condition, participants were paired with a partner who was responsible for the remaining two positions. In this condition, precues also specified whether one or both partners had to engage on a given trial. In the solo condition, targets that appeared in the two unassigned positions were difficult to ignore. This difficulty in ignoring unassigned targets could explain why solo performance more closely resembled performance in a situation where the solo participant performed the entire 4-choice task. In the social condition, the other targets were assigned to a partner, making them easier to ignore. This resulted in performance that resembled completion of just half the task. We propose that co-representation was suppressed in the social condition because participants could "loaf" as the co-actor was responsible for, and responded to, the targets in the unassigned positions.Acknowledgments: This research was funded by NSERC.
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 | 0.011 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".