Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34954447›Full record

ArticleCognition2022

When unsupervised training benefits category learning.

Franziska Bröker, Bradley C Love, Peter Dayan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Signatures of cross-modal alignment in children's early concepts.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023
    Article
  5. Article
  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

3 authors.

Franziska BrökerMax Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Tübingen, Germany; Gatsby Computational Neuroscience Unit, London, UK. Electronic address: franziska.broeker@tuebingen.mpg.de.
Bradley C LoveExperimental Psychology, University College London, London, UK.
Peter DayanMax Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Tübingen, Germany; University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.

Funding

ONTOGENESIS OF CATEGORIZATION: LINKING DEVELOPMENT, MECHANISMS, AND BIOLOGYP01HD080679 · NICHD · OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY · PI LOVE, BRADLEY C · 2016 to 2020
$5.8M
NICHD NIH HHS P01 HD080679Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust WT106931MA
6 · The paper itself

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

Supervised Machine LearningHumansCategorisationRepresentationSemi-supervised learning

Identifiers

PMID34954447
PMCPMC8811482

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.