Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38228994›Full record

ArticleMemory & cognition2024

High-variability training does not enhance generalization in the prototype-distortion paradigm.

Mingjia Hu, Robert M Nosofsky

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Memory & cognition, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. High coherence among training exemplars promotes broad generalization of face families.Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition · 2025
    Article
  2. 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

2 authors.

Mingjia HuPsychological and Brain Sciences, Indiana University, 1101 E. Tenth Street, Bloomington, IN, 47405, USA.
Robert M NosofskyPsychological and Brain Sciences, Indiana University, 1101 E. Tenth Street, Bloomington, IN, 47405, USA. nosofsky@indiana.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-2494-2719

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Classic studies of human categorization learning provided evidence that high-variability training in the prototype-distortion paradigm enhances subsequent generalization to novel test patterns from the learned categories. More recent work suggests, however, that when the number of training trials is equated across low-variability and high-variability training conditions, it is low-variability training that yields better generalization performance. Whereas the recent studies used cartoon-animal stimuli varying along binary-valued dimensions, in the present work we return to the use of prototype-distorted dot-pattern stimuli that had been used in the original classic studies. In accord with the recent findings, we observe that high-variability training does not enhance generalization in the dot-pattern prototype-distortion paradigm when the total number of training trials is equated across the conditions, even when training with very large numbers of distinct instances. A baseline version of an exemplar model captures the major qualitative pattern of results in the experiment, as do prototype models that make allowance for changes in parameter settings across the different training conditions. Based on the modeling results, we hypothesize that although high-variability training does not enhance generalization in the prototype-distortion paradigm, it may do so when participants learn more complex category structures.

Indexed as

Generalization, PsychologicalAdultConcept FormationHumansPattern Recognition, VisualYoung AdultCategorizationComputational modelingGeneralizationTraining-instance variability

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.