ArticleJournal of cognition2025
Implicit Learning of Parity and Magnitude Associations with Number Color.
Article in Journal of cognition, 2025. 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.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Associative learning can occur implicitly for stimuli that occur together probabilistically. It is debated whether probabilistic, implicit learning occurs not only at the item level, but also at the category level. Here, we investigated whether associative learning would occur between color and numerical categories, while participants performed a color task. In category-level experiments for each parity and magnitude, high-probability pairings of four numbers with one color were categorically consistent (e.g., the Arabic numerals 2,4,6, and 8 appeared in blue with a high probability, p = .9). Associative learning was measured as higher performance for high-probability vs. low-probability color/number pairings. For both parity and magnitude, performance was significantly better for high- vs. low-probability trials (parity: 3.1% more accurate; magnitude: 1.3% more accurate; 9 ms faster). Category-level learning was also evident in a subsequent color association report task with novel double-digit numbers (parity: 63% accuracy; magnitude: 55%). In control, item-level experiments, in which high-probability pairings were not categorically consistent (e.g., 2,3,6, and 7 appeared in blue with a high probability, p = .9), no significant differences between high- vs. low-probability trials were present. These results are in line with associative learning occurring at the category level, and, further, suggest automatic semantic processing of symbolic numerals in terms of parity and magnitude.
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.