↓ Skip to main content

The Transfer of Object Learning after Training with Multiple Exemplars

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 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
The Transfer of Object Learning after Training with Multiple Exemplars
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, September 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01386
Pubmed ID
Authors

Annelies Baeck, Karen Maes, Chayenne Van Meel, Hans P Op de Beeck

Abstract

Object recognition improves with training. This training effect only partially generalizes to untrained images of the trained objects (new exemplars, orientation,…). The aim of this study is to investigate whether and to what extent the learning transfer improves when participants are trained with more exemplars of an object. Participants were trained to recognize two sets of stimuli using a backward masking paradigm. During training with the first set, only one exemplar of each object was presented. The second set was trained using four exemplars of each object. After 3 days of training, participants were tested on all the trained exemplars and a completely new exemplar of the same objects. In addition, recognition performance was compared to a set of completely new objects. For the objects of which four exemplars were used during training, participants showed more generalization toward new exemplars compared to when they were only trained with one exemplar. Part of the generalization effect extended to completely new objects. In conclusion, more variation during training leads to more generalization toward new visual stimuli.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users 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 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 6%
Unknown 15 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 3 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 19%
Researcher 2 13%
Student > Bachelor 1 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 6%
Other 2 13%
Unknown 4 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 5 31%
Neuroscience 2 13%
Unknown 9 56%
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 04 November 2016.
All research outputs
#17,990,874
of 26,322,284 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#21,861
of 35,169 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#217,266
of 331,646 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#319
of 435 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,322,284 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 35,169 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.7. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 331,646 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 435 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.