Cognitive bias and reward affect contrast and response gain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Investigations of perceptual learning (PL) typically focus on stimulus and sensory factors that affect performance during training, and comparatively little is known about the roles response bias and reward structure play in determining how people learn from experience. Such questions are important because some naturalistic PL protocols (e.g., fingerprint identification) use extreme payoff structures that severely punish some responses. Therefore, we investigated how differing monetary rewards and punishments interact with PL during a texture identification task. We trained subjects on ten band-pass filtered, white noise textures in a same-different task, measuring accuracy while manipulating signal strength with the method of constant stimuli. Subjects were trained in adverse miss (AM), adverse false-alarm (AFA), and no adversity (NA) conditions over a period of five training sessions. In the NA condition, subjects received equal monetary rewards and punishments for each correct and incorrect identification. However, in the AM condition misses (identifying the same textures as different) were punished at a 100:3 ratio to rewards, and the AFA condition was subjected to similar punishment following false alarms. At the end of training, psychometric functions from subjects in the AM and AFA conditions exhibited a hard threshold: sensitivity was essentially zero to low-contrast patterns and the abruptly increased beyond a critical level of contrast. No such threshold was apparent in the NA condition. Hence, our results suggest that the reward structures in the AM and AFA conditions reduced sensitivity to weak signals and increased the slope of the psychometric function. Currently we are testing the effects of bias on PL across a wider range of payoff structures. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2017
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".