Crossmodal congruency effect scores decrease with repeat test exposure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The incorporation of feedback into a person’s body schema is well established. The crossmodal congruency effect (CCE) task is used to objectively quantify incorporation without being susceptible to experimenter biases. This visual-tactile interference task is used to calculate the CCE score as a difference in response time for incongruent and congruent trials. Here we show that this metric is susceptible to a learning effect that causes attenuation of the CCE score due to repeated task exposure sessions. We demonstrate that this learning effect is persistent, even after a 6 month hiatus in testing. Two mitigation strategies are proposed: 1. Only use CCE scores that are taken after learning has stabilized, or 2. Use a modified CCE protocol that decreases the task exposure time. We show that the modified and shortened CCE protocol, which may be required to meet time or logistical constraints in laboratory or clinical settings, reduced the impact of the learning effect on CCE results. Importantly, the CCE scores from the modified protocol were not significantly more variable than results obtained with the original protocol. This study highlights the importance of considering exposure time to the CCE task when designing experiments and suggests two mitigation strategies to improve the utility of this psychophysical assessment.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".