Dissociating Implicit and Explicit Category Learning Systems using Confidence Reports
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dual-process models of categorization (e.g., COVIS) have relied mostly on double-dissociation paradigms and participants' classification accuracy to highlight differences between explicit and implicit modes of learning. In these models, the implicit system uses procedural learning in the absence of attention whereas the explicit system uses hypothesis-testing requiring attentional resources. These accounts assume that the explicit system dominates early stages of learning whereas the implicit system dominates later stages of learning. Thus, differences in response accuracy over the course of learning and between category structures are taken as evidence for explicit and implicit processes. In four experiments, I will consider the utility of using subjective measures of performance (i.e., confidence reports) to continuously sample from participants' explicit representation of the category structure while also examining changes in these reports over the course of training. In Experiment 1, participants were presented with stimuli using the randomization technique using either a rule-based or information-integration category structure and provided with trial-to-trial and block feedback. Block feedback was removed in Experiment 2. In Experiment 3, feedback was delayed to interfere with the implicit learning system while leaving the explicit learning system unaffected. Finally, in Experiment 4, the performance asymptote was lowered to increase overconfidence in participants' performance. Importantly, I observed systematic biases in the relationship between accuracy and confidence reports across training. Confidence reports were more closely associated with explicit representations, produce significant overconfidence for rule-based category structures but only marginally overconfidence for information-integration category structures. These results have important implications for both models of categorization and confidence reports.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".