ArticleFrontiers in psychology2023
Distribution-dependent representations in auditory category learning and generalization.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A fundamental objective in Auditory Sciences is to understand how people learn to generalize auditory category knowledge in new situations. How we generalize to novel scenarios speaks to the nature of acquired category representations and generalization mechanisms in handling perceptual variabilities and novelty. The dual learning system (DLS) framework proposes that auditory category learning involves an explicit, hypothesis-testing learning system, which is optimal for learning rule-based (RB) categories, and an implicit, procedural-based learning system, which is optimal for learning categories requiring pre-decisional information integration (II) across acoustic dimensions. Although DLS describes distinct mechanisms of two types of category learning, it is yet clear the nature of acquired representations and how we transfer them to new contexts. Here, we conducted three experiments to examine differences between II and RB category representations by examining what acoustic and perceptual novelties and variabilities affect learners' generalization success. Learners can successfully categorize different sets of untrained sounds after only eight blocks of training for both II and RB categories. The category structures and novel contexts differentially modulated the generalization success. The II learners significantly decreased generalization performances when categorizing new items derived from an untrained perceptual area and in a context with more distributed samples. In contrast, RB learners' generalizations are resistant to changes in perceptual regions but are sensitive to changes in sound dispersity. Representational similarity modeling revealed that the generalization in the more dispersed sampling context was accomplished differently by II and RB learners. II learners increased representations of perceptual similarity and decision distance to compensate for the decreased transfer of category representations, whereas the RB learners used a more computational cost strategy by default, computing the decision-bound distance to guide generalization decisions. These results suggest that distinct representations emerged after learning the two types of category structures and using different computations and flexible mechanisms in resolving generalization challenges when facing novel perceptual variability in new contexts. These findings provide new evidence for dissociated representations of auditory categories and reveal novel generalization mechanisms in resolving variabilities to maintain perceptual constancy.
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.