Asymmetric stimulus representations bias visual perceptual learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The primate visual cortex contains various regions that exhibit specialization for different stimulus properties, such as motion, shape, and color. Within each region there is often further specialization, such that particular stimulus features, such as horizontal and vertical orientations, are overrepresented. These asymmetries are associated with well-known perceptual biases, but little is known about how they influence visual learning. Most theories would predict that learning is optimal, in the sense that it is unaffected by these asymmetries. But other approaches to learning would result in specific patterns of perceptual biases. To distinguish between these possibilities, we trained human observers to discriminate between expanding and contracting motion patterns, which have a highly asymmetrical representation in visual cortex. Observers exhibited biased percepts of these stimuli, and these biases were affected by training in ways that were often suboptimal. We simulated different neural network models and found that a learning rule that involved only adjustments to decision criteria, rather than connection weights, could account for our data. These results suggest that cortical asymmetries influence visual perception and that human observers often rely on suboptimal strategies for 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".