{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02468212415856395, 'fraction_numerical': 0.009723261032161555, 'mean_word_length': 5.623762376237623, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Realism of Confidence, Modes of Apprehension, and Variable-Use in Visual Discrimination of Relative Mass

In dynamic event perception, one issue is whether direct perception or cue-based inferences explains learning and performance. For visual discrimination of relative mass of colliding objects, Runeson, Juslin, and Olsson (2000) found that observers change from an inferential to a direct-perceptual mode of apprehension during practice, as indicated by lower confidence in their judgments. Unlike Runeson et al. (2000), we scored confidence against the variables used in individual blocks and analyzed collision-subsets, thereby counteracting inflated confidence scores. A majority of 40 novice participants used a nonspecifying variable and functioned inferentially, as indicated by realistic confidence. Five novices used the mass-ratio invariant and were overconfident therein. Ten participants received feedback based on the most-used nonspecifying variable. Despite feedback suggesting specificity of the variable, they continued to use the variable inferentially. After practice based on the invariant, 7 out of 10 used the invariant. An unexpected dearth of underconfidence for invariant usage is explained by fluctuations in variable usage. Methodological problems in the use of confidence as a mode indicator are discussed.