Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36517553›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2022

Investigating interactions between types of order in categorization.

Giulia Mezzadri, Patricia Reynaud-Bouret, Thomas Laloë, Fabien Mathy

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Giulia MezzadriCognition and Decision Lab, Columbia University, New York City, 10027, USA. gm3026@columbia.edu.
Patricia Reynaud-BouretLaboratoire J.A. Dieudonné UMR CNRS 7351, Université Côte d'Azur, Nice, 06108, France.
Thomas LaloëLaboratoire J.A. Dieudonné UMR CNRS 7351, Université Côte d'Azur, Nice, 06108, France.
Fabien MathyLaboratoire Bases, Corpus, Langage UMR CNRS 7320, Université Côte d'Azur, Nice, 06357, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study simultaneously manipulates within-category (rule-based vs. similarity-based), between-category (blocked vs. interleaved), and across-blocks (constant vs. variable) orders to investigate how different types of presentation order interact with one another. With regard to within-category orders, stimuli were presented either in a "rule plus exceptions" fashion (in the rule-based order) or by maximizing the similarity between contiguous examples (in the similarity-based order). As for the between-category manipulation, categories were either blocked (in the blocked order) or alternated (in the interleaved order). Finally, the sequence of stimuli was either repeated (in the constant order) or varied (in the variable order) across blocks. This research offers a novel approach through both an individual and concurrent analysis of the studied factors, with the investigation of across-blocks manipulations being unprecedented. We found a significant interaction between within-category and across-blocks orders, as well as between between-category and across-blocks orders. In particular, the combination similarity-based + variable orders was the most detrimental, whereas the combination blocked + constant was the most beneficial. We also found a main effect of across-blocks manipulation, with faster learning in the constant order as compared to the variable one. With regard to the classification of novel stimuli, learners in the rule-based and interleaved orders showed generalization patterns that were more consistent with a specific rule-based strategy, as compared to learners in the similarity-based and blocked orders, respectively. This study shows that different types of order can interact in a subtle fashion and thus should not be considered in isolation.

Indexed as

Concept FormationLearningGeneralization, PsychologicalRecords

Identifiers

PMID36517553
PMCPMC9751307

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.