ArticleJournal of experimental psychology. Animal learning and cognition2024
Cue duration and trial spacing effects in contingency assessment in the streaming procedure with humans.
Article in Journal of experimental psychology. Animal learning and cognition, 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, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- Contextual modulation of human associative learning following novelty-facilitated extinction, counterconditioning, and conventional extinction.Journal of experimental psychology. Animal learning and cognition · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
According to the cycle/trial (C/T) rule, the rate of associative learning is a function of the ratio between the overall rate of U.S. presentation (C) and its rate in the presence of the conditioned stimulus (CS; [T]). This rule is well supported in studies with nonhumans. The present study was conducted to test whether it also applies to human contingency learning. In Experiment 1, participants were exposed to rapid streams of trials. Sensitivity to the cue-outcome contingency varied with both intertrial interval (ITI, which captures C) and cue duration, but the C/T rule was not respected, notably because the effect of ITI was much larger than the effect of cue duration. Experiment 2 showed that mere suppression of verbal strategies did not alter the magnitude of the ITI effect. Experiment 3 replicated Experiment 1 but with cue duration and ITI varied between 1,000 and 3,000 ms instead of between 100 and 1,000 ms. Performance was insensitive to both cue duration and ITI. This was not the consequence of Experiment 3 only varying the cue duration to ITI ratio by a factor of 3; in Experiment 4 where the cue duration was 100 ms, a 300-ms ITI was sufficient to observe an ITI effect. The lack of an ITI effect with a 1,000-ms cue and an ITI varying between 1,000 and 3,000 ms was replicated in Experiment 5. These results are discussed in light of how processes underlying associative learning might break down when events occur very rapidly. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
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.