ArticlePloS one2026
Perceptual learning mechanisms with single-stimulus exposure.
Article in PloS one, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The present manuscript briefly reviews associative and non-associative theories of perceptual learning and presents two experiments (1a and 1b) examining the extent to which retrospective revaluation (RR) and a restoration of perceptual effectiveness (RPE) can account for the enhanced discriminability that experience with a single stimulus produces. In both experiments participants were exposed to compound visual stimuli BX, CY, and DZ in an online video-game method followed by conditioning with compound stimuli AX and AY. In Experiment 1a generalization to compounds BX, DX, BY, and DY was assessed. Generalization to compounds involving B, either BX or BY, was less than to DX or DY. The result possibly reflected enhanced salience of B, or that B had become inhibitory for the outcome through RR. Experiment 1b used a retardation test comparing compound stimuli BW and DW. Acquisition was more effective with BW than DW, suggesting that B had become more perceptually effective, resulting in it producing more external inhibition than D in Experiment 1a, and allowing it to condition more rapidly in Experiment 1b. Results are discussed with respect to current theories of perceptual learning and are consistent with a restoration of perceptual effectiveness.
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.