ArticleJournal of vision2024
The time course of stimulus-specific perceptual learning.
Article in Journal of vision, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Practice on perceptual tasks can lead to long-lasting, stimulus-specific improvements. Rapid stimulus-specific learning, assessed 24 hours after practice, has been found with just 105 practice trials in a face identification task. However, a much longer time course for stimulus-specific learning has been found in other tasks. Here, we examined 1) whether rapid stimulus-specific learning occurs for unfamiliar, non-face stimuli in a texture identification task; 2) the effects of varying practice across a range from just 21 trials up to 840 trials; and 3) if rapid, stimulus-specific learning persists over a 1-week, as well as a 1-day, interval. Observers performed a texture identification task in two sessions separated by one day (Experiment 1) or 1 week (Experiment 2). Observers received varying amounts of practice (21, 63, 105, or 840 training trials) in session 1 and completed 840 trials in session 2. In session 2, one-half of the observers in each group performed the task with the same textures as in session 1, and one-half switched to novel textures (same vs. novel conditions). In both experiments we found that stimulus-specific learning - defined as the difference in response accuracy in the same and novel conditions - increased as a linear function of the log number of session 1 training trials and was statistically significant after approximately 100 training trials. The effects of stimulus novelty did not differ across experiments. These results support the idea that stimulus-specific learning in our task arises gradually and continuously through practice, perhaps concurrently with general learning.
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.