↓ Skip to main content

Differences in the Time Course of Learning for Hard Compared to Easy Training

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Differences in the Time Course of Learning for Hard Compared to Easy Training
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00110
Pubmed ID
Authors

Adrian Garcia, Shu-Guang Kuai, Zoe Kourtzi

Abstract

Learning is known to facilitate performance in a range of perceptual tasks. Behavioral improvement after training is typically shown after practice with highly similar stimuli that are difficult to discriminate (i.e., hard training), or after exposure to dissimilar stimuli that are highly discriminable (i.e., easy training). However, little is known about the processes that mediate learning after training with difficult compared to easy stimuli. Here we investigate the time course of learning when observers were asked to discriminate similar global form patterns after hard vs. easy training. Hard training required observers to discriminate highly similar global forms, while easy training to judge clearly discriminable patterns. Our results demonstrate differences in learning and transfer performance for hard compared to easy training. Hard training resulted in stronger behavioral improvement than easy training. Further, for hard training, performance improved during single sessions, while for easy training performance improved across but not within sessions. These findings suggest that training with difficult stimuli may result in online learning of specific stimulus features that are similar between the training and test stimuli, while training with easy stimuli involves transfer of learning from highly to less discriminable stimuli that may require longer periods of consolidation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Germany 1 2%
Canada 1 2%
Unknown 44 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 34%
Student > Master 5 11%
Researcher 3 6%
Professor 3 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 4%
Other 9 19%
Unknown 9 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 20 43%
Computer Science 3 6%
Engineering 3 6%
Neuroscience 3 6%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 13 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 March 2013.
All research outputs
#20,184,694
of 22,699,621 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#23,812
of 29,454 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#248,721
of 280,695 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#851
of 969 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,699,621 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,454 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 280,695 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 969 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.