ArticleCognition2022
When unsupervised training benefits category learning.
Article in Cognition, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Human-interpretable clustering of short text using large language models.Royal Society open science · 2025Article
- The Delusional Hedge Algorithm as a Model of Human Learning From Diverse Opinions.Topics in cognitive science · 2025Article
- Predicting shock-induced cavitation using machine learning: implications for blast-injury models.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2024Article
- Signatures of cross-modal alignment in children's early concepts.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023Article
- Sparse labels, no problems: Infant categorization under challenging conditions.Child development · 2022Article
- A neural network model of the effect of prior experience with regularities on subsequent category learning.Cognition · 2022Article
- Effects of category learning strategies on recognition memory.Memory & cognition · 2022Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
Humans continuously categorise inputs, but only rarely receive explicit feedback as to whether or not they are correct. This implies that they may be integrating unsupervised information together with their sparse supervised data - a form of semi-supervised learning. However, experiments testing semi-supervised learning are rare, and are bedevilled with conflicting results about whether the unsupervised information affords any benefit. Here, we suggest that one important factor that has been paid insufficient attention is the alignment between subjects' internal representations of the stimulus material and the experimenter-defined representations that determine success in the tasks. Subjects' representations are shaped by prior biases and experience, and unsupervised learning can only be successful if the alignment suffices. Otherwise, unsupervised learning might harmfully strengthen incorrect assumptions. To test this hypothesis, we conducted an experiment in which subjects initially categorise items along a salient, but task-irrelevant, dimension, and only recover the correct categories when sufficient feedback draws their attention to the subtle, task-relevant, stimulus dimensions. By withdrawing feedback at different stages along this learning curve, we tested whether unsupervised learning improves or worsens performance when internal stimulus representations and task are sufficiently or insufficiently aligned, respectively. Our results demonstrate that unsupervised learning can indeed have opposing effects on subjects' learning. We also discuss factors limiting the degree to which such effects can be predicted from momentary performance. Our work implies that predicting and understanding human category learning in particular tasks requires assessment and consideration of the representational spaces that subjects entertain for the materials involved in those tasks. These considerations not only apply to studies in the lab, but could also help improve the design of tutoring systems and instruction.
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.