ArticleScientific reports2017
Mixture of easy trials enables transient and sustained perceptual improvements through priming and perceptual learning.
Article in Scientific reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Current directions in visual perceptual learning.Nature reviews psychology · 2022Article
- Assessing the functions underlying learning using by-trial and by-participant models: Evidence from two visual perceptual learning paradigms.Journal of vision · 2021Article
- Assessing the detailed time course of perceptual sensitivity change in perceptual learning.Journal of vision · 2019Article
- First- and second-order contributions to depth perception in anti-correlated random dot stereograms.Scientific reports · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The sense of vision allows us to discriminate fine details across a wide range of tasks. How to improve this perceptual skill, particularly within a short training session, is of substantial interest. Emerging evidence suggests that mixing easy trials can quickly improve performance in hard trials, but it is equivocal whether the improvement is short-lived or long-lasting, and additionally what accounts for this improvement. Here, by tracking objective performance (accuracy) and subjective experience (ratings of target visibility and choice confidence) over time and in a large sample of participants, we demonstrate the coexistence of transient and sustained effects of mixing easy trials, which differ markedly in their timescales, in their effects on subjective awareness, and in individual differences. In particular, whereas the transient effect was found to be ubiquitous and manifested similarly across objective and subjective measures, the sustained effect was limited to a subset of participants with weak convergence from objective and subjective measures. These results indicate that mixture of easy trials enables two distinct, co-existing forms of rapid perceptual improvements in hard trials, as mediated by robust priming and fragile learning. Placing constraints on theory of brain plasticity, this finding may also have implications for alleviating visual deficits.
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.