Transfer in motion perceptual learning depends on the difficulty of the training task

Abstract

One hypothesis in visual perceptual learning is that the amount of transfer depends on the difficulty of the training and transfer tasks (Ahissar & Hochstein, 1997; Liu, 1995, 1999). Jeter, Dosher, Petrov, and Lu (2009), using an orientation discrimination task, challenged this hypothesis by arguing that the amount of transfer depends only on the transfer task but not on the training task. Here we show in a motion direction discrimination task that the amount of transfer indeed depends on the difficulty of the training task. Specifically, participants were first trained with either 4° or 8° direction discrimination along one average direction. Their transfer performance was then tested along an average direction 90° away from the trained direction. A variety of transfer measures consistently demonstrated that transfer performance depended on whether the participants were trained on 4° or 8° directional difference. The results contradicted the prediction that transfer was independent of the training task difficulty.

The challenges of developing a contrast-based video game for treatment of amblyopia

“…Stimulus specific learning, a characteristic of perceptual learning in the normal visual system, was until recently interpreted as evidence for plasticity of sensory representations in primary cortices (see Karni and Bertini, 1997, for an earlier review). It is now clear that stimulus specificity depends on a number of factors including task difficulty (Wang et al, 2013), the axis of generalization (Webb et al, 2007), and attributes of the training regimen (Xiao et al, 2008; Zhang et al, 2010; Hussain et al, 2012a; Hung and Seitz, 2014). Therefore, stimulus specificity (or generalization) in itself cannot isolate the neural mechanism of learning.…”

Perceptual information supports transfer of learning in coordinated rhythmic movement

“…This transfer can be increased by increasing task difficulty (e.g. Siegel & Davis, 1980;Wang, Zhou, & Liu, 2013), but often transfer is better predicted by increasing similarity between the transfer and criterion tasks (e.g. Jeter, Dosher, Petrov, & Lu, 2009;Leonard, Karnes, Oxendine, & Hesson, 1970).…”

Two‐stage model in perceptual learning: toward a unified theory

“…[29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44] However, recent studies have indicated that under some conditions VPL can be generalized to untrained features. [45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52] Second, the locus, or brain area/information processing stage, at which VPL occurs has been highly debated. One line of studies has suggested that VPL is associated with changes primarily in visual areas (visual model), [53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67] while the other line of studies has proposed that VPL arises from changes in higher-level cognitive areas that are involved in decision making, or changes in weighting between the visual and cognitive areas (cognitive model).…”

“…The early general view that VPL occurs specifically for a trained feature has been challenged by recent VPL studies that reported generalization of VPL to untrained features under certain conditions. [45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52]89 These results support the view that VPL is mostly caused by improved task processing, and specificity of VPL is not explained by changes in low-level visual representations, but rather by higher level cognitive factors such as enduring attentional inhibition of the untrained features, 48,[50][51][52]90 selective reweighting of readout process to find specific visual representations which are the most useful for a trained task, 46,69,75,76,91 or overfitting the trained neuronal network to accidental features of the specific stimulus that is used during training. 6,92 Lower versus higher brain locus of VPL One of the controversies in the VPL field concerns the brain locus of VPL, that is, the neural processing stage that is changed in association with VPL.…”