Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28961270›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

Perceptual category learning of photographic and painterly stimuli in rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta) and humans.

Drew Altschul, Greg Jensen, Herbert Terrace

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
10.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. The effects of procedural and conceptual knowledge on visual learning.Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice · 2024
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Inferential Learning of Serial Order of Perceptual Categories by Rhesus Monkeys (The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2017
    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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Drew AltschulThe University of Edinburgh, Department of Psychology, 7 George Square, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-7053-4209
Greg JensenColumbia University, Department of Psychology, New York, NY, United States of America.
Herbert TerraceColumbia University, Department of Psychology, New York, NY, United States of America.
Columbia University · USAlzheimer Scotland · GB

Funding

Implicit serial learning in monkeys and humansR01MH111703 · NIMH · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI VINCENT P FERRERA, HERBERT S. TERRACE · 2018 to 2026
$5.6M
The neurophysiological basis of serial learningR01MH081153 · NIMH · COLUMBIA UNIV NEW YORK MORNINGSIDE · PI FERRERA, VINCENT P, TERRACE, HERBERT S. · 2008 to 2017
$3.2M
NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH081153NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH111703
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Humans are highly adept at categorizing visual stimuli, but studies of human categorization are typically validated by verbal reports. This makes it difficult to perform comparative studies of categorization using non-human animals. Interpretation of comparative studies is further complicated by the possibility that animal performance may merely reflect reinforcement learning, whereby discrete features act as discriminative cues for categorization. To assess and compare how humans and monkeys classified visual stimuli, we trained 7 rhesus macaques and 41 human volunteers to respond, in a specific order, to four simultaneously presented stimuli at a time, each belonging to a different perceptual category. These exemplars were drawn at random from large banks of images, such that the stimuli presented changed on every trial. Subjects nevertheless identified and ordered these changing stimuli correctly. Three monkeys learned to order naturalistic photographs; four others, close-up sections of paintings with distinctive styles. Humans learned to order both types of stimuli. All subjects classified stimuli at levels substantially greater than that predicted by chance or by feature-driven learning alone, even when stimuli changed on every trial. However, humans more closely resembled monkeys when classifying the more abstract painting stimuli than the photographic stimuli. This points to a common classification strategy in both species, one that humans can rely on in the absence of linguistic labels for categories.

Indexed as

LearningPhotic StimulationAnimalsHumansMacaca mulatta

Identifiers

PMID28961270
PMCPMC5621688
OpenAlexW2251212376

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.