MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3138800455 · doi:10.1037/xhp0000907

Tuning the ensemble: Incidental skewing of the perceptual average through memory-driven selection.

2021· article· en· W3138800455 on OpenAlexafffund
Ryan Williams, Jay Pratt, Susanne Ferber, Jonathan S. Cant

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Canadian institutionsThe Scarborough HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSelection (genetic algorithm)Computer sciencePerceptionCognitive psychologyArtificial intelligencePsychologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The process by which multiple items within an object grouping are rapidly summarized along a given visual dimension into a single mean value (i.e., perceptual averaging) has increasingly been shown to interact dynamically with visual working memory (VWM). Commonly, this interaction is studied with respect to the influence of perceptual averaging over VWM, but it is also the case that VWM can support perceptual averaging. Here, we argue that, in the presence of memory-matching elements, VWM exerts an obligatory influence over perceptual averaging even when it is detrimental to do so. Over four experiments, we tested our hypothesis by having individuals perform a mean orientation estimation task while concurrently maintaining a colored object in VWM. We anticipated that mean orientation reports would be attracted to the local mean of memory-matching items if such items are prioritized in perceptual average judgments. This was indeed the case as we observed a persistent bias in mean orientation judgments toward the subset mean of items matching the VWM item color, despite color being entirely irrelevant to the mean orientation task. Our results thus highlight a goal-invariant influence of VWM over perceptual averaging, which we attribute to amplification through memory-driven selection. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.153
Threshold uncertainty score0.975

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.134
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations13
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & PerformanceSame topicNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesFrench-language works237,207