Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33782786›Full record

ArticleExperimental brain research2021

Category structure guides the formation of neural representations.

Daniel J Plebanek, Karin H James

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Experimental brain research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Daniel J PlebanekDepartment of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA.
Karin H JamesDepartment of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA. khjames@indiana.edu.

Funding

National Institute of Health 2T32 HD007475-21
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Perceptual variability is often viewed as having multiple benefits in object learning and categorization. Despite the abundant results demonstrating benefits such as increased transfer of knowledge, the neural mechanisms underlying variability as well as the developmental trajectories of how variability precipitates changes to category boundaries are unknown. By manipulating an individual's exposure to variability of novel, metrically organized categories during an fMRI-adaptation paradigm, we were able to assess the functional differences between similarity and variability in category learning and generalization across two time-points in development: adulthood (n = 14) and late childhood (n = 13). During this study, participants were repeatedly exposed to category members from different distributions. After a period of adaptation, a deviant stimulus that differed from the expected distribution was then presented. This deviant differed in either an invariant dimension (a feature that remained consistent throughout presentation was altered) or a similarity dimension (a feature that changed throughout exposure was changed in a new dimension). Our results can be summarized in three main findings: (1) Variability during exposure recruited the right fusiform gyrus to a greater extent than tight exposure. (2) Deviant items were generalized based on the exemplar distributions during exposure, although children only generalized items if provided variable exposure. (3) Variability influenced release to a greater extent in children than adults. These results are discussed in relation to the variability and category learning literature more broadly.

Indexed as

Brain MappingTemporal LobeAdultChildConcept FormationGeneralization, PsychologicalHumansLearningMagnetic Resonance ImagingCategory learningDevelopmentFMRINeural adaptationVariability

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.