ArticleCognitive science2026
Effects of Statistical Learning on Stimulus Detection Speed Reflect Attention Rather Than Representational Changes.
Article in Cognitive science, 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.
- Effects of Statistical Learning on Target Detection Speed Can Reflect Prediction.Cognitive science · 2026Article
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
Abstract
Statistical learning (SL) is believed to enable humans to assimilate a range of statistical structures, and thus plays a role in many cognitive functions. There is also a growing interest in how SL interacts with basic cognitive processes, including perception and attention. Here, we ask how the extent to which stimuli predict, and are predicted by, other elements in a continuous stream affects their perception (i.e., encoding and representation) and the attention they attract. In two experiments, participants were first exposed to a stream of structured pairs of visual shapes (e.g., AB and CD). Then, they completed a target detection task to test if stimulus detection speed is influenced by a target's predictability during exposure (indexing representation) or by whether the shape preceding the target reliably predicted elements in the input (indexing attention). In Experiment 1 (N = 86), Reaction Times (RTs) were faster for second elements from structured pairs (i.e., cued elements) than first elements (i.e., cue elements), even when they appeared in new configurations (e.g., AD and CB). However, in Experiment 2 (N = 89), which orthogonally manipulated the target and the preceding shape properties, RTs were influenced solely by whether the preceding element was a cue for other elements, but not by the target's predictability. Thus, in contrast to previous studies using the same paradigm, our results do not provide evidence for an effect of SL on representation. Instead, our findings highlight how attention is guided by knowledge of statistical regularities, pointing to SL as a system that helps minimize uncertainty in structured environments.
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.