The ubiquity of selective attention in the processing of feedback during category learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Feedback is essential for many kinds of learning, but the cognitive processes involved in learning from feedback are unclear. Models of category learning incorporate selective attention to stimulus features while generating a response, but during the feedback phase of an experiment, it is assumed that participants receive complete information about stimulus features as well as the correct category. The present work looks at eye tracking data from six category learning datasets covering a variety of category complexities and types. We find that selective attention to task-relevant information is pervasive throughout feedback processing, suggesting a role for selective attention in memory encoding of category exemplars. We also find that error trials elicit additional stimulus processing during the feedback phase. Finally, our data reveal that participants increasingly skip the processing of feedback altogether. At the broadest level, these three findings reveal that selective attention is ubiquitous throughout the entire category learning task, functioning to emphasize the importance of certain stimulus features, the helpfulness of extra stimulus encoding during times of uncertainty, and the superfluousness of feedback once one has learned the task. We discuss the implications of our findings for modelling efforts in category learning from the perspective of researchers trying to capture the full dynamic interaction of selective attention and learning, as well as for researchers focused on other issues, such as category representation, whose work only requires simplifications that do a reasonable job of capturing learning.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".