MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2892627196 · doi:10.1167/18.10.266

Automatic prospective and retrospective activation of object representations during statistical learning

2018· article· en· W2892627196 on OpenAlexaff
Yu Luo, Jiaying Zhao

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObject (grammar)Artificial intelligenceRepresentation (politics)Sequence (biology)GazePsychologyComputer scienceStatistical learningCommunicationTask (project management)Computer visionChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although the visual system detects statistical relationships between objects with remarkable efficiency, it is unclear how statistical learning occurs. Here we examine how object representations are activated during statistical learning. In the experiment, participants viewed a continuous sequence of objects at the center of the screen while performing a cover 1-back task during exposure. Unbeknownst to the participants, the sequence contained pairs of objects where one object always appeared before another (e.g., A always appeared before B). At the periphery of the screen, all unique objects in the sequence were presented in fixed locations at all times during exposure. This means that at any given trial, the object in the central sequence was also presented in the periphery, as well as its partner in the pair and all the other objects in other pairs. Participants' eye gaze was tracked throughout exposure. At test, participants chose pairs over foils as more familiar, indicating that they successfully learned the object pairs. Importantly during exposure, we found that when the first object in the pair was presented at the center of the screen, participants looked at its partner (the second object in the pair) in the periphery more than the other objects in other pairs. When the second object in the pair was presented at the center of the screen, participants looked at its partner (the first object in the pair) in the periphery more than the other objects in other pairs. This finding suggests that seeing the first member automatically activates the representation of the upcoming second member in a pair, and seeing the second member automatically activates the representation of the preceding first member. This study not only provides a novel paradigm to measure representation activation during statistical learning, but also elucidates the mechanism of how statistical learning occurs. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2018

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.341 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Vision→Same topicVisual perception and processing mechanisms→French-language works237,207→