CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 12Memory Processes and InfluencesCategorization, perception, and languageVisual and Cognitive Learning Processes

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Relational rule discovery in complex discrimination learning.

Open access
Don, Hilary J., Goldwater, Micah B., Greenaway, Justine K., Hutchings, Rosalind, Livesey, Evan J.·2020·Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition
DOI 10.1037/xlm0000848

Published version of a preprint

Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Failure to learn and generalize abstract relational rules has critical implications for education. In this study, we aimed to determine which training conditions facilitate relational transfer in a relatively simple (patterning) discrimination versus a relatively complex (biconditional) discrimination. The amount of training participants received had little influence on rates of relational transfer. Instead, trial-sequencing of the training contingencies influenced relational transfer in different ways depending on the complexity of the discrimination. Clustering instances of relational rules together during training improved transfer of both simpler patterning and more difficult biconditional rules, regardless of individual differences in cognitive reflection. However, blocking all trials of the same type together improved rule transfer only for biconditional discriminations. Individual differences in cognitive reflection were also more predictive of relational rule use under suboptimal training conditions. The results highlight the need for comprehensive accounts of relational learning to consider how learning conditions and individual differences affect the likelihood of engaging in learning relational structures. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

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 · 10.1037/xlm0000848

Cites

3 of 3 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

Research works printed but not linked: 29

  1. Baetu, I., Burns, N. R., Yu, E., & Baker, A. G. (2018). Fluid Abilities and Rule Learning: Patterning and Biconditional Discriminations. Journal of Intelligence, 6, 7; doi:10.3390/jintelligence6010007. · DOI
  2. Bjork, R. A. (1994). Memory and metamemory considerations in the training of human beings. In J. Metcalfe & A. P. Shimamura (Eds.), Metacognition: Knowing about knowing (pp. 185-205). Cambridge, MA, US: The MIT Press.
  3. Carvalho, P. F., & Goldstone, R. L. (2015). The benefits of interleaved and blocked study: Different tasks benefit from different schedules of study. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 22, 281-288.
  4. Catrambone, R., & Holyoak, K. J. (1989). Overcoming contextual limitations on problem- solving transfer. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 1147.
  5. Cobos, P. L., Gutiérrez-Cobo, M. J., Morís, J., & Luque, D. (2017). Dependent measure and time constraints modulate the competition between conflicting feature-based and rule- based generalization processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43, 515-.
  6. Don, H. J., Goldwater, M. B., Otto, R. A., & Livesey, E. J. (2015). Connecting rule- abstraction and model-based choice across disparate learning tasks. In D. Noelle, R. Dale, A. Warlaumont, J. Yoshimi, T. Matlock, C. Jennings, & P. Maglio (Eds.), Proceedings of the 37th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 590-595). Pasadena, California: Cognitive Science Society.
  7. Don, H. J., Goldwater, M. B., Otto, R., Livesey, E. J. (2016). Rule abstraction, model-based choice and cognitive reflection. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23, 1615-1623.
  8. Doumas, L. A., Hummel, J. E., & Sandhofer, C. M. (2008). A theory of the discovery and predication of relational concepts. Psychological review, 115, 1.
  9. Ebbinghaus, H. (1885). Memory: A contribution to experimental psychology, trans. HA Ruger & CE Bussenius. Teachers College [rWvH].
  10. Frederick, S. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic perspectives, 19, 25-42.
  11. Gentner, D. (2003). Why we're so smart. In D. Gentner & S. Goldin-Meadow (Eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  12. Gentner, D., & Kurtz, K. J. (2005). Relational categories. In W.-K. Ahn (Ed.), Categorization inside and outside the lab (pp. 151-175). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
  13. Gershman, S. J. (2015). A unifying probabilistic view of associative learning. PLoS computational biology, 11(11), e1004567.
  14. Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive psychology, 15(1), 1-38.
  15. Goldwater, M. B., Don, H. J., Krusche, M., & Livesey, E. J. (2018). Relational Discovery in Category Learning, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147, 1-35.
  16. Goldwater, M. B., & Schalk, L. (2016). Relational categories as a bridge between cognitive and educational research. Psychological Bulletin, 142, 729-757.
  17. Leahy, W., Hanham, J., & Sweller, J. (2015). High element interactivity information during problem solving may lead to failure to obtain the testing effect. Educational Psychology Review, 27, 291-304.
  18. Harris, J. A., Livesey, E. J., Ghareai, S., & Westbrook, R. F. (2008). Negative patterning is easier than a biconditional discrimination. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 34, 494-500.
  19. Harris, J. A. & Livesey, E. J. (2008). Comparing Patterning and Biconditional Discriminations in Humans. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 34, 144-154.
  20. Hummel, J. E., & Holyoak, K. J. (2003). A symbolic-connectionist theory of relational inference and generalization. Psychological review, 110, 220.
  21. Livesey, E. J., Don, H. J., Uengoer, M., & Thorwart, A. (2019). Transfer of associability and relational structure in human associative learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning & Cognition, DOI: 10.1037/xan0000197 · DOI
  22. Livesey, E. J., Thorwart, A., & Harris, J. A. (2011). Comparing positive and negative patterning in human learning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64, 2316- 2333.
  23. Livesey, E. J., Thorwart, A., De Fina, N. L., & Harris, J. A. (2011). Comparing learned predictiveness effects within and across compound discriminations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 37, 446-465.
  24. McDaniel, M. A., Cahill, M. J., Robbins, M., & Wiener, C. (2014). Individual differences in learning and transfer: Stable tendencies for learning exemplars versus abstracting rules. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143, 668.
  25. Milton, F., Bealing, P., Carpenter, K. L., Bennattayallah, A., & Wills, A. J. (2017). The neural correlates of similarity-and rule-based generalization. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 29, 150-166.
  26. Shanks, D. R., & Darby, R. J. (1998). Feature-and rule-based generalization in human associative learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 24, 405-415.
  27. Thorwart, A., Uengoer, M., Livesey, E. J. & Harris, J. A. (2017). Summation effects in human learning: evidence from patterning discriminations in goal-tracking. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70, 1366-1379.
  28. Wills, A. J., Barrasin, T. J., & McLaren, I. P. L. (2011). Working memory capacity and generalization in predictive learning. In L. Carlson, C. Hölscher, & T. Shipley (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 3205- 3210). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
  29. Wills, A. J., Graham, S., Koh, Z., McLaren, I. P. L., & Rolland, M. D. (2011). Effects of concurrent load on feature-and rule-based generalization in human contingency learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 37, 308-316.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Don, H. J., Goldwater, M. B., Greenaway, J. K., Hutchings, R., & Livesey, E. J.
Affiliations
The University of Sydney (AU)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2020-10
Volume
46
Issue
10
Pages
1807-1827
ISSN
  • 0278-7393 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1285
DOI
10.1037/xlm0000848
OpenAlex
W3023609378
Cited by
12
References
3
Citations by year
2025: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1
FWCI
1.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Australian Research Council (DP150104267)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Categorization, perception, and language
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
Keywords
discrimination learning, biconditional discrimination, individual differences, cognitive reflection, rule generalization
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Discrimination Learning, Female, Humans, Individuality, Male, Practice, Psychological, Thinking, Transfer, 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