Configuration perceptual learning and its relationship with element perceptual learning
Open accessAbstract
Visual perceptual learning has been studied extensively and reported to enhance the perception of almost all types of training stimuli, from low- to high-level visual stimuli. Notably, high-level stimuli are often composed of multiple low-level features. Therefore, it is natural to ask whether training of high-level stimuli affects the perception of low-level stimuli and vice versa. In the present study, we trained subjects with either a high-level configuration stimulus or a low-level element stimulus. The high-level configuration stimulus consisted of two Gabors in the left and right visual fields, respectively, and the low-level element stimulus was the Gabor in the right visual field of the configuration stimulus. We measured the perceptual learning effects using the configuration stimulus and the element stimuli in both left and right visual fields. We found that the configuration perceptual learning equally improved the perception of the configuration stimulus and both element stimuli. In contrast, the element perceptual learning was confined to the trained element stimulus. These findings demonstrate an asymmetric relationship between perceptual learning of the configuration and the element stimuli and suggest a hybrid mechanism of the configuration perceptual learning. Our findings also offer a promising paradigm to promote the efficiency of perceptual learning-that is, gaining more learning effect with less training time.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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.
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?
Perceptual learning studies report transfer from configuration to element learning but not the opposite.
“Perceptual learning studies similarly report transfer from configuration to element learning but not the opposite”
From The asymmetry of working memory training transfer: A systematic review and meta-analysis (2026) · cites this paper as Gong et al., 2022
The Discussion reports complete configuration-to-element transfer and an asymmetric pattern. It describes element-to-configuration transfer as weak, however, rather than absent, so “not the opposite” overstates the finding. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 82 · Cited by 1
- Authors
- Gong, X., Wang, Q., & Fang, F.
- Affiliations
- Peking University (CN)
- Corresponding author
- Gong, Xizi
- Wang, Qian
- Fang, Fang
- ORCID
- Venue
- Journal of Vision
- Published
- 2022-12-01
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 13
- Pages
- 2
- ISSN
- 1534-7362 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC9728498
- OpenAlex
- W4311065938
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 82
- Citations by year
- 2023: 1
- FWCI
- 0.13
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Vision (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Face Recognition and Perception
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Multisensory perception and integration
- Keywords
- perceptual learning, low-level visual features, Gabor stimuli, visual field asymmetry, training efficiency
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Visual Fields, Spatial Learning
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