ArticlePloS one2026
What type of relationship is learned during visual statistical learning?
Article in PloS one, 2026. 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
Statistical learning enables observers to extract regularities from their environment, but what statistical regularity is extracted remains debated. While previous research has mainly focused on conditional probability, recent evidence suggests that observers may instead learn the uniqueness of predictive relationships. In two visual statistical learning experiments, we manipulated the strength and uniqueness of associations between two object stimuli. We contrasted the predictions of three metrics of associative strength, which incorporate the strength and uniqueness of the association differentially. Participants viewed sequences of objects with varying transitional structures and completed an incidental categorization task. Reaction time benefits for expected versus unexpected stimuli were used to gauge learning. Across two experiments, learning benefits were best predicted by the dual factor heuristic (DFH), a heuristic that jointly considers the conditional probabilities of cue given outcome and outcome given cue. This metric predicted learning behavior better than either the conditional probability of outcome given cue, or the normative metric ΔP, which considers the difference in conditional probabilities of outcome given cue, compared to outcome given no cue. These results suggest that visual statistical learning is primarily guided by a heuristic calculation of uniqueness, as formalized by [Formula: see text], rather than either simple conditional probability or [Formula: see text].
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.