ArticlePsychological research2024
Stimulus variability improves generalization following response inhibition training.
Article in Psychological research, 2024. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The present study examined the effect of stimulus variability and practice order on generalization to novel stimuli following a single session of response inhibition training. Ninety-six young adults practiced the Go/No-go task online in three training conditions: (1) constant (N = 32)-inhibition practiced on one stimulus; (2) variable-blocked (N = 32)-inhibition practiced on 6 stimuli, each in a separate block; and (3) variable-random (N = 32)-inhibition practiced on 6 stimuli in random order. Generalization was measured by comparing groups on inhibition of novel stimuli and a trained stimulus immediately and 24 h after training. Consistent with our hypothesis, the variable-random and the variable-blocked groups showed better generalization to the novel items than the constant group, demonstrating the benefit of stimulus variability. The variable-random group also showed better generalization than the variable-blocked group, demonstrating the benefit of presenting stimuli in random order. Participants' capacity for working memory maintenance was found to modulate the effect of practice order. While the benefit of variability was retained 24 h after training, the effect of order was not. Results also show generalization to (1) different type of stimuli using the same task and (2) the same stimuli on a different response inhibition task (the Stop-Signal Task), however, the effect of variable practice and order were not evident in these cases. The study findings illustrate the advantage of using variable stimuli presented in random order for generalization and suggest that these principles of motor learning can be applied to learning of cognitive skills.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38227074What 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.