ArticleFrontiers in psychology2015
Impact of feature saliency on visual category learning.
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 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Benefits of fading in perceptual learning are driven by more than dimensional attention.PloS one · 2017Trial
- Relation between dimensional distinctiveness and comparison format in a novel noun generalization task in preschoolers.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
- When unsupervised training benefits category learning.Cognition · 2022Article
- Use of evidence in a categorization task: analytic and holistic processing modes.Cognitive processing · 2017Article
- Feedback associated with expectation for larger-reward improves visuospatial working memory performances in children with ADHD.Developmental cognitive neuroscience · 2015Article
- Many faces, one rule: the role of perceptual expertise in infants' sequential rule learning.Frontiers in psychology · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
People have to sort numerous objects into a large number of meaningful categories while operating in varying contexts. This requires identifying the visual features that best predict the 'essence' of objects (e.g., edibility), rather than categorizing objects based on the most salient features in a given context. To gain this capacity, visual category learning (VCL) relies on multiple cognitive processes. These may include unsupervised statistical learning, that requires observing multiple objects for learning the statistics of their features. Other learning processes enable incorporating different sources of supervisory information, alongside the visual features of the categorized objects, from which the categorical relations between few objects can be deduced. These deductions enable inferring that objects from the same category may differ from one another in some high-saliency feature dimensions, whereas lower-saliency feature dimensions can best differentiate objects from distinct categories. Here I illustrate how feature saliency affects VCL, by also discussing kinds of supervisory information enabling reflective categorization. Arguably, principles debated here are often being ignored in categorization studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.