Modulation of response activation leads to biases in perceptuomotor decision making.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Humans are constantly enacting motor responses based on perceptual judgments or decisions. Recent work suggests that accumulating evidence for a decision and planning the action to enact the decision are coupled. Further, decision commitment may occur when the action reaches its motor threshold. Across several experiments, this coupled perception-action account of perceptuomotor decision making was tested by determining if increasing response activation corresponding to one decision influenced the evidence needed to make that decision. Participants were presented with stimuli that contained varying ratios of yellow-to-blue squares and made a speeded left/right-hand response to report whether the stimulus had more yellow or blue squares, respectively. Response activation was modulated by presenting stimuli laterally on the screen-spatially compatible or incompatible with the color reports. When stimuli appeared leftward (spatially compatible with a left response/"yellow" report), the threshold for a "yellow" perceptuomotor decision was reduced-consistent with the hypothesis that increasing "yellow" response activation would lead to a "yellow" reporting bias. Further, when stimuli appeared rightward (spatially compatible with a right response/"blue" report), the threshold for a "blue" perceptuomotor decision was reduced. An additional experiment revealed that directional saccades occurring during the task were unlikely to account for biases. Overall, spatially induced response activation influenced the decision outcomes, providing support for a tightly coupled perception-action system underlying perceptuomotor decisions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".