ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2025
How individual differences shape ERP responses to visual statistical learning.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2025. 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Statistical learning (SL) enables the extraction of regularities from sensory input, yet the neural dynamics supporting this process-particularly in the visual modality-remain incompletely understood. Sixty-seven adults were familiarized with a continuous stream of shape sequences containing statistical structure that defined shape triplets. We recorded EEG to familiar sequences (presented in isolation) and unfamiliar foils. Both early (N100) and late (N400) event related potential (ERP) components were significantly more negative for unfamiliar than familiar sequences, reflecting robust neural sensitivity to learned structure. Notably, these familiarity effects were evident in both high- and low-performing participants and were not predicted by overall behavioral sensitivity, suggesting that neural indices of learning can emerge independently of explicit recognition. Follow-up analyses incorporating trial-level accuracy revealed a striking crossover interaction: for sensitive participants, ERP familiarity effects were stronger on correct trials, whereas for insensitive participants, effects were larger on incorrect trials. These findings highlight a dissociation between neural and behavioral measures of statistical learning and underscore the value of ERPs in capturing latent learning processes that may elude conscious awareness.
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.