ArticleLearning & behavior2026
Cognitive strategies involved in the discrimination of geometric angles.
Article in Learning & behavior, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Participants were trained and tested on their ability to discriminate among geometric angles presented to them as freestanding three-dimensional objects located within a larger experimental room. Three different angle sizes were used during training and participants were grouped based on their assigned training angle (110°, 135° or 160° angle), which they learned to discriminate from the remaining two angles. Following a learning phase, participants experienced test trials in which their training angle was paired with a novel test angle, and they made a choice between the two angles. Participants in the smallest angle group (Group 110) biased their choices toward test angles that were smaller than their training angle; conversely, participants in the largest angle group (Group 160) biased their choices toward test angles that were larger than their training angle. When it came to trials involving fine discrimination between angles, both groups showed a high degree of precision when needed. Results support cognitive strategies of geometric estimation that include relational rule learning and more fine-grained judgements to maximize overall accuracy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41741937What 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.