Quantifying rhythmicity in perceptual reports
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Several recent studies investigated the rhythmic nature of cognitive processes that lead to perception and behavioral report. These studies used different methods, and there has not yet been an agreement on a general standard. Here, we present a way to test and quantitatively compare these methods. We simulated behavioral data from a typical experiment and analyzed these data with several methods. We applied the main methods found in the literature, namely sine-wave fitting, the Discrete Fourier Transform (DFT) and the Least Square Spectrum (LSS). DFT and LSS can be applied both on the averaged accuracy time course and on single trials. LSS is mathematically equivalent to DFT in the case of regular, but not irregular sampling - which is more common. LSS additionally offers the possibility to take into account a weighting factor which affects the strength of the rhythm, such as arousal. Statistical inferences were done either on the investigated sample (fixed-effect) or on the population (random-effect) of simulated participants. Multiple comparisons across frequencies were corrected using False-Discovery-Rate, Bonferroni, or the Max-Based approach. To perform a quantitative comparison, we calculated Sensitivity, Specificity and D-prime of the investigated analysis methods and statistical approaches. Within the investigated parameter range, single-trial methods had higher sensitivity and D-prime than the methods based on the averaged-accuracy-time-course. This effect was further increased for a simulated rhythm of higher frequency. If an additional (observable) factor influenced detection performance, adding this factor as weight in the LSS further improved Sensitivity and D-prime. For multiple comparison correction, the Max-Based approach provided the highest Specificity and D-prime, closely followed by the Bonferroni approach. Given a fixed total amount of trials, the random-effect approach had higher D-prime when trials were distributed over a larger number of participants, even though this gave less trials per participant. Finally, we present the idea of using a dampened sinusoidal oscillator instead of a simple sinusoidal function, to further improve the fit to behavioral rhythmicity observed after a reset event.
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 | 0.006 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".