Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34914743›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

The ubiquity of selective attention in the processing of feedback during category learning.

Katerina Dolguikh, Tyrus Tracey, Mark R Blair

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 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

3 authors.

Katerina DolguikhCognitive Science Program, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, Canada.
Tyrus TraceyCognitive Science Program, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-7847-6218
Mark R BlairCognitive Science Program, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-5291-7871

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Feedback is essential for many kinds of learning, but the cognitive processes involved in learning from feedback are unclear. Models of category learning incorporate selective attention to stimulus features while generating a response, but during the feedback phase of an experiment, it is assumed that participants receive complete information about stimulus features as well as the correct category. The present work looks at eye tracking data from six category learning datasets covering a variety of category complexities and types. We find that selective attention to task-relevant information is pervasive throughout feedback processing, suggesting a role for selective attention in memory encoding of category exemplars. We also find that error trials elicit additional stimulus processing during the feedback phase. Finally, our data reveal that participants increasingly skip the processing of feedback altogether. At the broadest level, these three findings reveal that selective attention is ubiquitous throughout the entire category learning task, functioning to emphasize the importance of certain stimulus features, the helpfulness of extra stimulus encoding during times of uncertainty, and the superfluousness of feedback once one has learned the task. We discuss the implications of our findings for modelling efforts in category learning from the perspective of researchers trying to capture the full dynamic interaction of selective attention and learning, as well as for researchers focused on other issues, such as category representation, whose work only requires simplifications that do a reasonable job of capturing learning.

Indexed as

AttentionEye-Tracking TechnologyFeedbackFemaleHumansLearningMalePhotic StimulationYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID34914743
PMCPMC8675756

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.