Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25745404›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2015

Feature saliency and feedback information interactively impact visual category learning.

Rubi Hammer, Vladimir Sloutsky, Kalanit Grill-Spector

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Rubi HammerDepartment of Psychology, Stanford University Stanford, CA, USA ; Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Northwestern University Evanston, IL, USA ; Interdepartmental Neuroscience Program, Northwestern University Evanston, IL, USA.
Vladimir SloutskyDepartment of Psychology and Center for Cognitive Science, The Ohio State University Columbus, OH, USA.
Kalanit Grill-SpectorDepartment of Psychology, Stanford University Stanford, CA, USA ; Stanford Neuroscience Institute, Stanford University Stanford, CA, USA.

Funding

The Development of CategorizationR01HD078545 · NICHD · OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY · PI SLOUTSKY, VLADIMIR M · 2014 to 2025
$4.7M
fMRI and Behavioral Studies of Unsupervised Learning in High Level Visual CortexR01EY019279 · NEI · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI GRILL-SPECTOR, KALANIT · 2009 to 2013
$1.9M
Cross-modal processing and lexical developmentR01HD056105 · NICHD · OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY · PI SLOUTSKY, VLADIMIR M · 2009 to 2010
$899k
NEI NIH HHS R01 EY019279NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD056105NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD078545
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Visual category learning (VCL) involves detecting which features are most relevant for categorization. VCL relies on attentional learning, which enables effectively redirecting attention to object's features most relevant for categorization, while 'filtering out' irrelevant features. When features relevant for categorization are not salient, VCL relies also on perceptual learning, which enables becoming more sensitive to subtle yet important differences between objects. Little is known about how attentional learning and perceptual learning interact when VCL relies on both processes at the same time. Here we tested this interaction. Participants performed VCL tasks in which they learned to categorize novel stimuli by detecting the feature dimension relevant for categorization. Tasks varied both in feature saliency (low-saliency tasks that required perceptual learning vs. high-saliency tasks), and in feedback information (tasks with mid-information, moderately ambiguous feedback that increased attentional load, vs. tasks with high-information non-ambiguous feedback). We found that mid-information and high-information feedback were similarly effective for VCL in high-saliency tasks. This suggests that an increased attentional load, associated with the processing of moderately ambiguous feedback, has little effect on VCL when features are salient. In low-saliency tasks, VCL relied on slower perceptual learning; but when the feedback was highly informative participants were able to ultimately attain the same performance as during the high-saliency VCL tasks. However, VCL was significantly compromised in the low-saliency mid-information feedback task. We suggest that such low-saliency mid-information learning scenarios are characterized by a 'cognitive loop paradox' where two interdependent learning processes have to take place simultaneously.

Indexed as

attentional learningcategorizationcategory learningfeature saliencyfeedback processingperceptual expertiseperceptual learningvisual perception

Identifiers

PMID25745404
PMCPMC4333777

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.