Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38769277›Full record

ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2024

Intermixed levels of visual search difficulty produce asymmetric probability learning.

Bo-Yeong Won, Andrew B Leber

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Bo-Yeong WonDepartment of Psychology, California State University, Chico, CA, 95929, USA. bywon@csuchico.edu.
Andrew B LeberDepartment of Psychology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

When performing novel tasks, we often apply the rules we have learned from previous, similar tasks. Knowing when to generalize previous knowledge, however, is a complex challenge. In this study, we investigated the properties of learning generalization in a visual search task, focusing on the role of search difficulty. We used a spatial probability learning paradigm in which individuals learn to prioritize their search toward the locations where a target appears more often (i.e., high-probable location) than others (i.e., low-probable location) in a search display. In the first experiment, during a training phase, we intermixed the easy and difficult search trials within blocks, and each was respectively paired with a distinct high-probable location. Then, during a testing phase, we removed the probability manipulation and assessed any generalization of spatial biases to a novel, intermediate difficulty task. Results showed that, as training progressed, the easy search evoked a stronger spatial bias to its high-probable location than the difficult search. Moreover, there was greater generalization of the easy search learning than difficult search learning at test, revealed by a stronger bias toward the former's high-probable location. Two additional experiments ruled out alternatives that learning during difficult search itself is weak and learning during easy search specifically weakens learning of the difficult search. Overall, the results demonstrate that easy search interferes with difficult search learning and generalizability when the two levels of search difficulty are intermixed.

Indexed as

AttentionOrientationPattern Recognition, VisualProbability LearningAssociation LearningDiscrimination LearningFemaleGeneralization, PsychologicalHumansMaleOrientation, SpatialReaction TimeYoung AdultGeneralizabilityProbability cueingSearch difficultySpatial attention

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.