Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 938

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Human Category Learning

Ashby, F. Gregory, Maddox, W. Todd·2005·Annual Review of Psychology

Abstract

Much recent evidence suggests some dramatic differences in the way people learn perceptual categories, depending on exactly how the categories were constructed. Four different kinds of category-learning tasks are currently popular—rule-based tasks, information-integration tasks, prototype distortion tasks, and the weather prediction task. The cognitive, neuropsychological, and neuroimaging results obtained using these four tasks are qualitatively different. Success in rule-based (explicit reasoning) tasks depends on frontal-striatal circuits and requires working memory and executive attention. Success in information-integration tasks requires a form of procedural learning and is sensitive to the nature and timing of feedback. Prototype distortion tasks induce perceptual (visual cortical) learning. A variety of different strategies can lead to success in the weather prediction task. Collectively, results from these four tasks provide strong evidence that human category learning is mediated by multiple, qualitatively distinct systems.

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 · 10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070217

Cites

9 of 9 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

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

Show all 9 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Ashby, F. G., & Maddox, W. T.
Venue
Annual Review of Psychology
Published
2005-02-01
Volume
56
Issue
1
Pages
149-178
ISSN
  • 0066-4308 (ISSN-L)
  • 1545-2085
OpenAlex
W2129668249
Cited by
938
References
9
FWCI
8.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.