Cited by 337Visual perception and processing mechanismsMemory and Neural MechanismsMultisensory perception and integration

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 57 of the 57 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Rewards Evoke Learning of Unconsciously Processed Visual Stimuli in Adult Humans

Open access

Abstract

The study of human learning is complicated by the myriad of processing elements involved in conducting any behavioral task. In the case of visual perceptual learning, there has been significant controversy regarding the task processes that guide the formation of this learning. However, there is a developing consensus that top-down, task-related factors are required for such learning to take place. Here we challenge this idea by use of a novel procedure in which human participants, who were deprived of food and water, passively viewed visual stimuli while receiving occasional drops of water as rewards. Visual orientation stimuli, which were temporally paired with the liquid rewards, were viewed monocularly and rendered imperceptible by continuously flashing contour-rich patterns to the other eye. Results show that visual learning can be formed in human adults through stimulus-reward pairing in the absence of a task and without awareness of the stimulus presentation or reward contingencies.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuron.2009.01.016

Cites

57 of 57 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 337

Metadata

Authors
Seitz, A. R., Kim, D., & Watanabe, T.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Riverside (US)
  • Boston University (US)
Corresponding author
Seitz, Aaron R.
Venue
Neuron
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009-03
Volume
61
Issue
5
Pages
700-707
ISSN
0896-6273 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2040382032
Cited by
337
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 25 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 23 · 2014: 37 · 2013: 29 · 2012: 23
FWCI
11.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Neuron (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Eye Institute (R01EY015980, R21EY017737)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Multisensory perception and integration
Keywords
visual perceptual learning, reward, unconscious processes, top-down processing, monocular viewing, stimulus awareness, food deprivation, water reward, visual orientation
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Humans, Learning, Male, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Photic Stimulation, Psychophysics, Reward, Unconscious, Psychology, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review