Cognitive Changes in Conjunctive Rule-Based Category Learning: An ERP Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PreprintWhen learning rule-based categories, sufficient cognitive resources are needed to test hypotheses, maintain the currently active rule in working memory, update rules after feedback, and to select a new rule if necessary. Prior research has demonstrated that conjunctive rules are more complex than unidimensional rules and place greater demands on executive functions like working memory. In our study, event-related potentials (ERPs) were recorded while participants performed a conjunctive rule-based category learning task with trial-by-trial feedback. In line with prior research, correct categorization responses resulted in a larger stimulus-locked late positive complex compared to incorrect responses, possibly indexing the updating of rule information in memory. Incorrect trials elicited a pronounced feedback-locked P300 elicited which suggested a disconnect between perception, and the rule-based strategy. We also examined the differential processing of stimuli that were able to be correctly classified by the suboptimal single-dimensional rule (“easy” stimuli) versus those that could only be correctly classified by the optimal, conjunctive rule (“difficult” stimuli). Among strong learners, a larger, late positive slow wave emerged for difficult compared to easy stimuli, suggesting differential processing of category items even though strong learners performed well on the conjunctive category set. Overall, the findings suggest that ERP combined with computational modelling can be used to better understand the cognitive processes involved in rule-based category 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".