On the automaticity of visual statistical learning
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
Humans can extract regularities from their environment, enabling them to recognize and predict sequences of events. The process of regularity extraction is called ‘statistical learning’ and is generally thought to occur rapidly and automatically; that is, regularities are extracted from repeated stimulus presentations, without intent or awareness, as long as the stimuli are attended. We hypothesized that visual statistical learning is not entirely automatic, even when stimuli are attended, and that the learning depends on the extent to which viewers process the relationships between stimuli. To test this, we measured statistical learning performance across seven conditions in which participants (N=774) viewed image sequences. As task instructions across conditions increasingly required participants to attend to relationships between stimuli, their learning performance increased from chance to robust levels. We conclude that the learning observed in visual statistical learning paradigms is, for the most part, not automatic and requires more than passively attending to stimuli.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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