Unmasking the effects of orthography, semantics, and phonology on 2AFC visual word perceptual identification
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the two-alternative forced-choice (2AFC) task, the target stimulus is presented very briefly, and participants must choose which of two options was the presented target. Some past research has assumed that the 2AFC task isolates orthographic effects, despite orthographic, semantic, and phonological differences between the options. If so, performance should not differ between word/nonword pairs and British/American word pairs, the latter of which only differ orthographically. In Experiment 1, accuracy and sensitivity were higher during word/nonword trials than British/American trials when participants did not guess, demonstrating that phonological/semantic processing contributes to performance. Experiment 2 showed that target visibility did not interact with pair type on RT, which suggests phonological/semantic processing did not feed back to orthographic encoding in this task. This study demonstrates the influence of phonological/semantic processing on word perceptual identification, and shows that using British/American word pairs provides a method to isolate orthography in the 2AFC task.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it