Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38435707›Full record

ArticleOpen mind : discoveries in cognitive science2024

Systematic Human Learning and Generalization From a Brief Tutorial With Explanatory Feedback.

Andrew J Nam, James L McClelland

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Open mind : discoveries in cognitive science, 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. Meta-learning is expressed through altered prefrontal cortical dynamics.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    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.

Andrew J NamDepartment of Psychology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
James L McClellandDepartment of Psychology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We investigate human adults' ability to learn an abstract reasoning task quickly and to generalize outside of the range of training examples. Using a task based on a solution strategy in Sudoku, we provide Sudoku-naive participants with a brief instructional tutorial with explanatory feedback using a narrow range of training examples. We find that most participants who master the task do so within 10 practice trials and generalize well to puzzles outside of the training range. We also find that most of those who master the task can describe a valid solution strategy, and such participants perform better on transfer puzzles than those whose strategy descriptions are vague or incomplete. Interestingly, fewer than half of our human participants were successful in acquiring a valid solution strategy, and this ability was associated with completion of high school algebra and geometry. We consider the implications of these findings for understanding human systematic reasoning, as well as the challenges these findings pose for building computational models that capture all aspects of our findings, and we point toward a role for learning from instructions and explanations to support rapid learning and generalization.

Indexed as

abstractionexplanationgeneralizationsystematicity

Identifiers

PMID38435707
PMCPMC10898786

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.