MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387956572 · doi:10.1177/23727322231195268

Perceptual Learning: Policy Insights From Basic Research to Real-World Applications

2023· article· en· W4387956572 on OpenAlexaff
Aaron R. Seitz, Allison B. Sekuler, Barbara Anne Dosher, Beverly A. Wright, Chang‐Bing Huang, C. Shawn Green, Christopher C. Pack, Dov Sagi, Dennis M. Levi, Duje Tadin, Elizabeth M. Quinlan, Fang Jiang, Gabriel J. Diaz, Geoffrey M. Ghose, József Fiser, Karen Banai, Kristina Visscher, Krystel R. Huxlin, Ladan Shams, Lorella Battelli, Marisa Carrasco, Michael H. Herzog, Miguel P. Eckstein, Nicholas B. Turk‐Browne, Nitzan Censor, Peter De Weerd, Rufin Vogels, Shaul Hochstein, Takeo Watanabe, Yuka Sasaki, Uri Polat, Zhong‐Lin Lu, Zoe Kourtzi

Bibliographic record

VenuePolicy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcMaster University
FundersBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
KeywordsPerceptionAgency (philosophy)Translational researchPerceptual learningPsychologyCognitive scienceCognitive psychologyComputer scienceNeuroscienceMedicineSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Perceptual learning is the process by which experience alters how incoming sensory information is processed by the brain to give rise to behavior—it is critical for how humans educate children, train experts, treat diseases, and promote health and well-being throughout the lifespan. Knowledge of perceptual learning requires basic and applied research in humans and nonhuman animal models, which informs strategic targets for advancing applications. Commercial products to induce perceptual learning are proliferating rapidly with limited regulation (e.g., for rehabilitation), while at the same time basic science is increasingly restricted by changing regulations (such as new granting-agency definitions of clinical trials). Realizing the full potential of perceptual learning requires balancing basic and translational science to advance new knowledge, while serving and protecting consumers. Reforms can promote open, accessible, and representative research, and the translation of this research to applications across different sectors of society.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.756
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.007
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.211
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.217 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolicy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain SciencesSame topicNeural dynamics and brain functionFrench-language works237,207