ArticlePsychological research2025
Learning Type I and Type II regularities between multiple sequentially presented stimulus categories.
Article in Psychological research, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Classification is a common cognitive task, which requires assigning objects or events to categories based on shared features or rules (e.g., red objects are fruit, brown objects are mushrooms). In everyday scenarios, however, objects usually belong to more than one category (e.g., red objects can also be classified as edible, and brown objects could be poisonous). This study investigates whether humans can learn corresponding regularities between outcomes of such multiple categorizations when performed in a series of decisions for each stimulus. We therefore translated classical category learning designs, known as Type I (one-dimensional rule) and Type II (disjunctive rule), into a temporal context. We compared these cases to conditions in which no correlations existed between the series of categorization outcomes, and only the visual stimulus predicted each category outcome. Besides the structural complexity, we also tested in Type I scenarios whether learning and generalization were moderated by the temporal proximity of the successive decisions (adjacent vs. non-adjacent categorizations). The results show that participants can abstract away from the visual stimulus with a temporal Type I regularity, but there was no evidence for a corresponding effect with a temporal Type II regularity. The role of adjacency was not clear-cut, but there was no strong evidence favoring stronger performance with adjacent relative to non-adjacent categorizations. We discuss these findings before the background of category- and artificial grammar-learning research, and expand on potential moderating factors such as the cognitive effort of keeping the necessary amount of information in working memory and the modality of category predictors when determining whether people will extract rules or rely on memory-based 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.