Advertisement

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

, Volume 26, Issue 6, pp 1889–1895 | Cite as

Easy-to-hard effects in perceptual learning depend upon the degree to which initial trials are “easy”

  • Matthew G. WisniewskiEmail author
  • Barbara A. Church
  • Eduardo MercadoIII
  • Milen L. Radell
  • Alexandria C. Zakrzewski
Brief Report
  • 143 Downloads

Abstract

Starting perceptual training at easy levels before progressing to difficult levels generally produces better learning outcomes than constantly difficult training does. However, little is known about how “easy” these initial levels should be in order to yield easy-to-hard effects. We compared five levels of initial training block difficulty varying from very easy to hard in two auditory-discrimination learning tasks—a frequency modulation rate discrimination (Experiment 1) and a frequency range discrimination (Experiment 2). The degree of difficulty was based on individualized pretraining ~71% correct discrimination thresholds. Both experiments revealed a sweet spot for easy-to-hard effects. Conditions where initial blocks were either too easy or too difficult produced less benefit than did blocks of intermediate difficulty. Results challenge assumptions that sequencing effects in learning are related to attentional spotlighting of task-relevant dimensions. Rather, they support incremental learning models that account for easy-to-hard effects. Further, the results have implications for how perceptual training regimens should be designed to maximize the benefits of rehabilitative perceptual training.

Keywords

Fading Progressive training Transfer along a continuum Adaptive training 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Kelsey Wheeler helped with data collection. This project was supported by a grant from the National Institute of General Medical Science GM113109 of the National Institutes of Health.

Compliance with ethical standards

Open practices statement

A preexperiment plan, annotated postexperiment file, and the raw data are available at www.alclaboratory.com/opendata.

References

  1. Ahissar, M., & Hochstein, S. (2004). The reverse hierarchy theory of visual perceptual learning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(10), 457–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amitay, S., Irwin, A., Hawkey, D. J., Cowan, J. A., & Moore, D. R. (2006). A comparison of adaptive procedures for rapid and reliable threshold assessment and training in naïve listeners. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 119(3), 1616–1625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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(1), 281–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Church, B. A., Mercado, E., III, Wisniewski, M. G., & Liu, E. H. (2013). Temporal dynamics in auditory perceptual learning: Impact of sequencing and incidental learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39(1), 270–276.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Goldstone, R. L. (1998). Perceptual learning. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 585-612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. James, W. J. (1890). The principles of psychology. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
  7. Kruschke, J. K. (1992). ALCOVE: An exemplar-based connectionist model of category learning. Psychological Review, 99(1), 22–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Lee, J. C., & Livesey, E. J. (2018). Rule-based generalization and peak shift in the presence of simple relational rules. PLOS ONE, 13(9), e0203805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Levitt, H. (1970). Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 49, 467–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Liu, E. H., Mercado, E., III, Church, B. A., & Orduña, I. (2008). The easy-to-hard effect in human (Homo sapiens) and rat (Rattus norvegicus) auditory identification. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 122, 132–145. Google Scholar
  11. McLaren, I. P. L., & Mackintosh, N. J. (2002). Associative learning and elemental representation: II. Generalization and discrimination. Animal Learning & Behavior, 30(3), 177–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Molloy, K., Moore, D. R., Sohoglu, E., & Amitay, S. (2012). Less is more: Latent learning is maximized by shorter training sessions in auditory perceptual learning. PLOS ONE, 7(5), e36929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Orduña, I., Liu, E. H., Church, B. A., Eddins, A. C., & Mercado, E., III. (2012). Evoked-potential changes following discrimination learning involving complex sounds. Clinical Neurophysiology, 123(4), 711–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Pashler, H., & Mozer, M. C. (2013). When does fading enhance perceptual category learning?. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39(4), 1162–1173.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Saksida, L. M. (1999). Effects of similarity and experience on discrimination learning: A nonassociative connectionist model of perceptual learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 25(3), 308–323.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Sanjuán, M. C., Nelson, J. B., & Alonso, G. (2014). An easy-to-hard effect after nonreinforced preexposure in a sweetness discrimination. Learning & Behavior, 42(3), 209–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Spence, K. W. (1937). The differential response in animals to stimuli varying within a single dimension. Psychological Review, 44, 430–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Sutherland, N. S., & Mackintosh, N. J. (1971). Mechanisms of animal discrimination learning. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  19. Van Engen, K. J., & Peelle, J. E. (2014). Listening effort and accented speech. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 577.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Wisniewski, M. G., Church, B. A., & Mercado III, E. (2014a). Individual differences during acquisition predict shifts in generalization. Behavioural Processes, 104, 26–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Wisniewski, M. G., Liu, E. H., Church, B. A., & Mercado, E., III. (2014b). Learning to discriminate frequency modulation rate can benefit and worsen pitch acuity. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 135(2), EL55–EL60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Wisniewski, M. G., Mantell, J. T., & Pfordresher, P. Q. (2013). Transfer effects in the vocal imitation of speech and song. Psychomusicology: Music, Mind, and Brain, 23(2), 82–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Wisniewski, M. G., Radell, M. L., Church, B. A., & Mercado, E., III. (2017). Benefits of fading in perceptual learning are driven by more than dimensional attention. PLOS ONE, 12(7), e0180959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wisniewski, M. G., Radell, M. L., Guillette, L. M., Sturdy, C. B., & Mercado, E. (2012). Predicting shifts in generalization gradients with perceptrons. Learning & Behavior, 40(2), 128–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wright, B. A., Sabin, A. T., Zhang, Y., Marrone, N., & Fitzgerald, M. B. (2010). Enhancing perceptual learning by combining practice with periods of additional sensory stimulation. Journal of Neuroscience, 30, 12868–12877.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthew G. Wisniewski
    • 1
    Email author
  • Barbara A. Church
    • 2
  • Eduardo MercadoIII
    • 3
  • Milen L. Radell
    • 4
  • Alexandria C. Zakrzewski
    • 1
  1. 1.Kansas State UniversityManhattanUSA
  2. 2.Georgia State UniversityAtlantaUSA
  3. 3.University at Buffalo, The State University of New YorkBuffaloUSA
  4. 4.Niagara UniversityNiagara UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations