What you learn is more than what you see: what can sequencing effects tell us about inductive category learning?

Inductive category learning takes place across time. As such, it is not surprising that the sequence in which information is studied has an impact in what is learned and how efficient learning is. In this paper we review research on different learning sequences and how this impacts learning. We analyze different aspects of interleaved (frequent alternation between categories during study) and blocked study (infrequent alternation between categories during study) that might explain how and when one sequence of study results in improved learning. While these different sequences of study differ in the amount of temporal spacing and temporal juxtaposition between items of different categories, these aspects do not seem to account for the majority of the results available in the literature. However, differences in the type of category being studied and the duration of the retention interval between study and test may play an important role. We conclude that there is no single aspect that is able to account for all the evidence available. Understanding learning as a process of sequential comparisons in time and how different sequences fundamentally alter the statistics of this experience offers a promising framework for understanding sequencing effects in category learning. We use this framework to present novel predictions and hypotheses for future research on sequencing effects in inductive category learning.

[1]  Gregory Ashby,et al.  A neuropsychological theory of multiple systems in category learning. , 1998, Psychological review.

[2]  R. Bjork Memory and metamemory considerations in the training of human beings. , 1994 .

[3]  Anderson,et al.  LEVv The Effects of Category Generalizations and Instance Similarity on Schema Abstraction , 2022 .

[4]  Timothy D. Lee,et al.  Contextual interference: Generalizability and limitations , 2012 .

[5]  Aaron B. Hoffman,et al.  Thirty-something categorization results explained: selective attention, eyetracking, and models of category learning. , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[6]  Nick Chater,et al.  Sequence effects in categorization of simple perceptual stimuli. , 2002, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[7]  Corey J. Bohil,et al.  Delayed feedback effects on rule-based and information-integration category learning. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[8]  David A. Balota,et al.  Expanded vs. Equal Interval Spaced Retrieval Practice: Exploring Different Schedules of Spacing and Retention Interval in Younger and Older Adults , 2008, Neuropsychology, development, and cognition. Section B, Aging, neuropsychology and cognition.

[9]  Edward Vul,et al.  PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE Research Article Spacing Effects in Learning A Temporal Ridgeline of Optimal Retention , 2022 .

[10]  Aaron S. Benjamin,et al.  What makes distributed practice effective? , 2010, Cognitive Psychology.

[11]  Hermann Ebbinghaus (1885) Memory: A Contribution to Experimental Psychology , 2013, Annals of Neurosciences.

[12]  W. R. Garner,et al.  Concept learning as a function of form of internal structure , 1963 .

[13]  Teal S Eich,et al.  Spacing as the friend of both memory and induction in young and older adults. , 2010, Psychology and aging.

[14]  Jeffrey D. Karpicke,et al.  Spaced retrieval: absolute spacing enhances learning regardless of relative spacing. , 2011, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[15]  C. P. Duncan,et al.  Human discrimination learning with simultaneous and successive presentation of stimuli. , 1952, Journal of experimental psychology.

[16]  Henry L. Roediger,et al.  Is expanding retrieval a superior method for learning text materials? , 2010, Memory & cognition.

[17]  S. Hochstein,et al.  The development of category learning strategies: What makes the difference? , 2009, Cognition.

[18]  Christopher N. Wahlheim,et al.  Spacing enhances the learning of natural concepts: an investigation of mechanisms, metacognition, and aging , 2011, Memory & cognition.

[19]  Jay Royce Alleman,et al.  Effects of massed and distributed practice schedules on trainable mentally retarded in the learning and retention of gross motor skills , 1973 .

[20]  Kristine C. Bloom,et al.  Effects of Massed and Distributed Practice on the Learning and Retention of Second-Language Vocabulary , 1981 .

[21]  Shana K. Carpenter,et al.  Enhancing learning and retarding forgetting: Choices and consequences , 2007, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[22]  John A. Glover,et al.  Massed versus distributed repeated reading: A case of forgetting helping recall? , 1990 .

[23]  R. C. Honey,et al.  Simultaneous presentation of similar stimuli produces perceptual learning in human picture processing. , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. Animal behavior processes.

[24]  J. Mumford,et al.  Greater Neural Pattern Similarity Across Repetitions Is Associated with Better Memory , 2010, Science.

[25]  A. Glenberg Monotonic and nonmonotonic lag effects in paired-associate and recognition memory paradigms , 1976 .

[26]  Katherine A. Rawson,et al.  Testing the retrieval effort hypothesis: Does greater difficulty correctly recalling information lead to higher levels of memory? , 2009 .

[27]  Catherine M. Sandhofer,et al.  Order of Presentation Effects in Learning Color Categories , 2008 .

[28]  Harold Pashler,et al.  Optimizing distributed practice: theoretical analysis and practical implications. , 2009, Experimental psychology.

[29]  E. F. Maccaslin Successive and simultaneous discrimination as a function of stimulus-similarity. , 1954, The American journal of psychology.

[30]  C I HOVLAND,et al.  Concept learning with differing sequences of instances. , 1956, Journal of experimental psychology.

[31]  S. Hochstein,et al.  Comparison processes in category learning: From theory to behavior , 2008, Brain Research.

[32]  Jennifer S. Burt,et al.  Spacing and Induction: Application to Exemplars Presented as Auditory and Visual Text. , 2012 .

[33]  Vladimir M Sloutsky,et al.  Carrot Eaters or Moving Heads , 2012, Psychological science.

[34]  Robert L. Goldstone Isolated and interrelated concepts , 1996, Memory & cognition.

[35]  Xiaojin Zhu,et al.  Can semi-supervised learning explain incorrect beliefs about categories? , 2011, Cognition.

[36]  Timothy C. Rickard,et al.  Spacing and the transition from calculation to retrieval , 2008, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[37]  Robert L. Goldstone,et al.  The benefits of interleaved and blocked study: Different tasks benefit from different schedules of study , 2014, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.

[38]  R. Nosofsky Attention, similarity, and the identification-categorization relationship. , 1986, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[39]  Haley A. Vlach The Spacing Effect in Children's Generalization of Knowledge: Allowing Children Time to Forget Promotes Their Ability to Learn , 2014 .

[40]  Doug Rohrer,et al.  The shuffling of mathematics problems improves learning , 2007 .

[41]  E. Bjork,et al.  Why interleaving enhances inductive learning: The roles of discrimination and retrieval , 2013, Memory & cognition.

[42]  H. Ebbinghaus Memory A Contribution Toexperimental Psychology , 1913 .

[43]  H. Pashler,et al.  Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. , 2006, Psychological bulletin.

[44]  R. C. Honey,et al.  The role of stimulus comparison in human perceptual learning: effects of distractor placement. , 2011, Journal of experimental psychology. Animal behavior processes.

[45]  Robert L. Goldstone,et al.  Sequential similarity and comparison effects in category learning , 2011, CogSci.

[46]  R. C. Honey,et al.  Perceptual learning in humans: Roles of preexposure schedule, feedback, and discrimination assay , 2004, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. B, Comparative and physiological psychology.

[47]  Rubi Hammer,et al.  Category learning from equivalence constraints , 2009, Cognitive Processing.

[48]  J. S. Burt,et al.  The exemplar interleaving effect in inductive learning: Moderation by the difficulty of category discriminations , 2012, Memory & Cognition.

[49]  Christopher N. Wahlheim,et al.  The role of reminding in the effects of spaced repetitions on cued recall: sufficient but not necessary. , 2014, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[50]  V. Sloutsky Effects of Training on Category Learning , 2013 .

[51]  John Dunlosky,et al.  Improving Students’ Learning With Effective Learning Techniques: Promising Directions From Cognitive and Educational Psychology , 2012 .

[52]  Robert L. Goldstone,et al.  Effects of interleaved and blocked study on delayed test of category learning generalization , 2014, Front. Psychol..

[53]  J. J. Donovan,et al.  A meta-analytic review of the distribution of practice effect: Now you see it, now you don't. , 1999 .

[54]  Doug Rohrer,et al.  Interleaved Practice Improves Mathematics Learning. , 2014 .

[55]  Clara E. Bussenius,et al.  Memory : A Contribution to Experimental Psychology , 2017 .

[56]  Marcus R. Watson,et al.  Extremely selective attention: eye-tracking studies of the dynamic allocation of attention to stimulus features in categorization. , 2009, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[57]  Larry L. Jacoby,et al.  The Power of Examples: Illustrative Examples Enhance Conceptual Learning of Declarative Concepts , 2015 .

[58]  Doug Rohrer,et al.  The effects of interleaved practice , 2010 .

[59]  C. Mitchell,et al.  Effects of Exposure on Discrimination of Similar Stimuli and on Memory for Their Unique and Common Features , 2012, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[60]  Robert L. Goldstone,et al.  Putting category learning in order: Category structure and temporal arrangement affect the benefit of interleaved over blocked study , 2014, Memory & cognition.

[61]  F Gregory Ashby,et al.  Initial Training With Difficult Items Facilitates Information Integration, but Not Rule-Based Category Learning , 2008, Psychological science.

[62]  J. Kruschke,et al.  ALCOVE: an exemplar-based connectionist model of category learning. , 1992, Psychological review.

[63]  F. Q. Ribeiro The meta-analysis , 2017, Brazilian journal of otorhinolaryngology.

[64]  Robert A. Bjork,et al.  The spacing effect: Consolidation or differential encoding? , 1970 .

[65]  L. Jacoby,et al.  When forgetting helps memory: an analysis of repetition effects , 1982 .

[66]  Shana K Carpenter,et al.  The effects of interleaving versus blocking on foreign language pronunciation learning , 2013, Memory & cognition.

[67]  Catherine M. Sandhofer,et al.  At the same time or apart in time? The role of presentation timing and retrieval dynamics in generalization. , 2012, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[68]  Chris Janiszewski,et al.  A Meta-analysis of the Spacing Effect in Verbal Learning: Implications for Research on Advertising Repetition and Consumer Memory , 2003 .

[69]  R. C. Honey,et al.  Short Article: Superior Discrimination between Similar Stimuli after Simultaneous Exposure , 2009, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[70]  A. Latimer,et al.  High Levels of Contextual Interference Enhance Handwriting Skill Acquisition , 2004, Journal of motor behavior.

[71]  John R. Anderson,et al.  The effects of information order and learning mode on schema abstraction , 1984, Memory & cognition.

[72]  Brian Ross,et al.  Comparisons in Category Learning: How Best to Compare For What , 2011, CogSci.

[73]  Shana K. Carpenter,et al.  Application of the Testing and Spacing Effects to Name Learning , 2005 .

[74]  V. Sloutsky,et al.  Induction and categorization in young children: a similarity-based model. , 2004, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[75]  Geoffrey Hall,et al.  The intermixed-blocked effect in human perceptual learning is not the consequence of trial spacing. , 2008, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[76]  A. Glenberg,et al.  Spacing repetitions over 1 week , 1980, Memory & cognition.

[77]  Doug Rohrer,et al.  Interleaving Helps Students Distinguish among Similar Concepts , 2012 .

[78]  D. Rohrer,et al.  The benefit of interleaved mathematics practice is not limited to superficially similar kinds of problems , 2014, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[79]  Bridgid Finn,et al.  Metacognitive judgments of repetition and variability effects in natural concept learning: evidence for variability neglect , 2012, Memory & Cognition.

[80]  J. D. Smith,et al.  Deferred Feedback Sharply Dissociates Implicit and Explicit Category Learning , 2014, Psychological science.

[81]  D. Gentner,et al.  PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE Research Article STRUCTURAL ALIGNMENT IN COMPARISON: No Difference Without Similarity , 2022 .

[82]  R. Bjork,et al.  Learning Concepts and Categories , 2008, Psychological science.

[83]  L. Lipsitt Simultaneous and successive discrimination learning in children. , 1961, Child development.

[84]  Steven M. Smith,et al.  Environmental context and human memory , 1978 .

[85]  L. E. Bourne,et al.  Surface form and the spacing effect , 1985, Memory & cognition.

[86]  Jacob Feldman,et al.  A rule-based presentation order facilitates category learning , 2009, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[87]  Eric S. Lee,et al.  The effects of error transformations on classification performance. , 1988 .

[88]  B. Ross,et al.  Generalizing from the use of earlier examples in problem solving , 1990 .

[89]  J. Shea,et al.  Contextual interference effects on the acquisition, retention, and transfer of a motor skill. , 1979 .

[90]  Klaus Pohl,et al.  Application Testing , 2005, Software Product Line Engineering.

[91]  S. Samuels Effect of Simultaneous Versus Successive Discrimination Training on Paired-Associate Learning. , 1969 .

[92]  L. Oakes,et al.  A Comparison of Infants' Categorization in Paired and Successive Presentation Familiarization Tasks. , 2005, Infancy : the official journal of the International Society on Infant Studies.

[93]  Winston R. Sieck,et al.  Learning myopia: an adaptive recency effect in category learning. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[94]  Geoffrey Hall Perceptual and associative learning , 1991 .

[95]  Paulo F. Carvalho,et al.  Memory encoding of stimulus features in human perceptual learning , 2012 .

[96]  Peter P. J. L. Verkoeijen,et al.  Spacing and Testing Effects: A Deeply Critical, Lengthy, and At Times Discursive Review of the Literature , 2010 .

[97]  B. Ross Remindings and their effects in learning a cognitive skill , 1984, Cognitive Psychology.

[98]  N. Mackintosh,et al.  Associative learning and elemental representation: II. Generalization and discrimination , 2002, Animal learning & behavior.

[99]  C. L. Hull Quantitative aspects of evolution of concepts: An experimental study. , 1920 .

[100]  D. Medin,et al.  SUSTAIN: a network model of category learning. , 2004, Psychological review.

[101]  Sean H. K. Kang,et al.  Learning Painting Styles: Spacing is Advantageous when it Promotes Discriminative Contrast , 2012 .

[102]  Joanna P. Williams,et al.  Simultaneous and Successive Discrimination of Similar Letters. , 1971 .

[103]  Kenneth R. Koedinger,et al.  Problem Order Implications for Learning , 2013, International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education.