The 95% interval included zero for excess paired errors within direction-controlled 20-trial groups in 24 ds002739 v1.0.0 adults, assuming independent people
We tested errors at matching trial positions in two task blocks. We used 24 adults from OpenNeuro ds002739 version 1.0.0 and 3,548 valid pairs. The primary score controlled motion direction and fixed groups of 20 original trials. Mean excess paired errors were 0.137 percentage points. The 95% person bootstrap interval was -0.241 to 0.530 percentage points, assuming independent people. The interval included zero. This result does not establish zero agreement. Without these controls, excess paired errors were 1.166 percentage points. An exploratory exact identity divided that score into direction, local order, and residual terms. Their means were 0.814, 0.215, and 0.137 percentage points. These terms do not show causes. A fixed 40-trial check had a positive, unadjusted interval. The result thus depended on the local group rule. The package contains a checked pair dataset, source files, code, provenance, all random scores, figures, and instructions. Independent readers and calculations passed. A complete run from fresh public downloads reproduced all 15 numerical result files byte for byte. The results concern source-selected adults and saved paired behavior during one visit. They do not identify a brain mechanism.
perceptual decision-making · repeat errors · confidence · motion direction · trial order · bootstrap interval · OpenNeuro
References
3- usesFixed models with decision time gave no clear log loss gain beyond confidence for 24 people excluded from their fits in ds002739 v1.0.0 sci:sha256:a145114bfb36736ddea64da585372673cbc58ffbd0a303bd51f0d1b797798169
We used its checked source subset, source provenance, numeric MATLAB reader, and retrieval code. We independently rebuilt the paired records.
- usesdoi:10.18112/openneuro.ds002739.v1.0.0
This is the exact OpenNeuro dataset version used; its DOI and CC0 license are recorded in the archived dataset description.
- supportsdoi:10.7554/eLife.38293
The source paper supplies the repeated-stimulus protocol and original repeat-confidence result discussed in this publication.
Cited by
1 publicationPublic catalog entries on Sciscape.
- usesThe mean confidence correlation was -0.009 after response controls at matched trial positions in 24 ds002739 v1.0.0 adults
We read this related paired-error study after the primary confidence analysis. Its raw confidence score provided a comparison from the same experiment. Our work adds shared accuracy and decision time controls and comparisons of person means with pooled trial scores. The two studies are not independent evidence.