"He chose...poorly": Lack of optimal behaviour and choice preference when choosing between target-penalty configurations via a keypress
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When presented with two different target-penalty configurations of similar Maximum Expected Gain (MEG), participants prefer aiming to configurations with more advantageous spatial parameters rather than more advantageous gain parameters (Neyedli & Welsh, 2015) – perhaps due to the motor system's inherent prioritization of spatial information during reaching movements. To test this hypothesis, participants chose between target-penalty configurations via keypress responses to reduce feedback and the importance of spatial parameters. Configurations varied in both spatial (target-penalty region overlap) and gain parameters (negative penalty values) and could be of similar or different MEG. Choices were made without prior aiming experience (Experiment 1), after aiming experience provided information of movement variability (Experiment 2), or after aiming experience provided information of movement variability and outcome feedback (Experiment 3). At the group level, configurations with the advantageous spatial or gain parameters were chosen equally (Similar condition) in all experiments. Interestingly, the larger MEG configuration was not chosen at a level above chance (Different condition) when no prior aiming experience or when variability information was given, but was chosen more often when both variability and outcome information were given prior to the keypress task. Further, participant-by-participant analyses revealed 3 subgroups: those with a value preference, a distance preference, or no preference. These individual differences cannot be explained by MEG differences between prospects or participant's movement variability. Overall, the data indicate that prioritization of spatial information did not emerge when performing keypress responses and optimal behaviour emerged only when information regarding movement variability and outcome feedback were given.Acknowledgments: Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
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 | 0.013 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".