ArticleJournal of vision2024
Enabling identification of component processes in perceptual learning with nonparametric hierarchical Bayesian modeling.
Article in Journal of vision, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Hierarchical Bayesian augmented Hebbian reweighting model of perceptual learning.Journal of vision · 2025Article
- Using Hierarchical Bayesian Modeling to Enhance Statistical Inference on Contrast Sensitivity.Translational vision science & technology · 2024Article
- Predicting contrast sensitivity functions with digital twins.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Estimating the Trial-by-Trial Learning Curve in Perceptual Learning with Hierarchical Bayesian Modeling.Research square · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Perceptual learning is a multifaceted process, encompassing general learning, between-session forgetting or consolidation, and within-session fast relearning and deterioration. The learning curve constructed from threshold estimates in blocks or sessions, based on tens or hundreds of trials, may obscure component processes; high temporal resolution is necessary. We developed two nonparametric inference procedures: a Bayesian inference procedure (BIP) to estimate the posterior distribution of contrast threshold in each learning block for each learner independently and a hierarchical Bayesian model (HBM) that computes the joint posterior distribution of contrast threshold across all learning blocks at the population, subject, and test levels via the covariance of contrast thresholds across blocks. We applied the procedures to the data from two studies that investigated the interaction between feedback and training accuracy in Gabor orientation identification over 1920 trials across six sessions and estimated learning curve with block sizes L = 10, 20, 40, 80, 160, and 320 trials. The HBM generated significantly better fits to the data, smaller standard deviations, and more precise estimates, compared to the BIP across all block sizes. In addition, the HBM generated unbiased estimates, whereas the BIP only generated unbiased estimates with large block sizes but exhibited increased bias with small block sizes. With L = 10, 20, and 40, we were able to consistently identify general learning, between-session forgetting, and rapid relearning and adaptation within sessions. The nonparametric HBM provides a general framework for fine-grained assessment of the learning curve and enables identification of component processes in perceptual 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.