Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32543649›Full record

ArticleJournal of vision2020

Roving: The causes of interference and re-enabled learning in multi-task visual training.

Barbara Anne Dosher, Jiajuan Liu, Wilson Chu, Zhong-Lin Lu

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of vision, 2020. 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
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 33% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Barbara Anne Dosher,.
Jiajuan Liu,.
Wilson Chu,.
Zhong-Lin Lu.
University of California, Irvine · USNew York University Shanghai · CN

Funding

The Functions and Mechanisms of Perceptual LearningR01EY017491 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-IRVINE · PI DOSHER, BARBARA A., LU, ZHONG-LIN · 2006 to 2023
$6.1M
NEI NIH HHS R01 EY017491
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

People routinely perform multiple visual judgments in the real world, yet, intermixing tasks or task variants during training can damage or even prevent learning. This paper explores why. We challenged theories of visual perceptual learning focused on plastic retuning of low-level retinotopic cortical representations by placing different task variants in different retinal locations, and tested theories of perceptual learning through reweighting (changes in readout) by varying task similarity. Discriminating different (but equivalent) and similar orientations in separate retinal locations interfered with learning, whereas training either with identical orientations or sufficiently different ones in different locations released rapid learning. This location crosstalk during learning renders it unlikely that the primary substrate of learning is retuning in early retinotopic visual areas; instead, learning likely involves reweighting from location-independent representations to a decision. We developed an Integrated Reweighting Theory (IRT), which has both V1-like location-specific representations and higher level (V4/IT or higher) location-invariant representations, and learns via reweighting the readout to decision, to predict the order of learning rates in different conditions. This model with suitable parameters successfully fit the behavioral data, as well as some microstructure of learning performance in a new trial-by-trial analysis.

Indexed as

CognitionHumansLearningOrientationRetinaVision, LowVisual CortexVisual Perception

Identifiers

PMID32543649
PMCPMC7416889
OpenAlexW3034364675

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.