| Title |
Trial-by-trial switching between procedural and declarative categorization systems
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Psychological Research, November 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00426-016-0828-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Matthew J. Crossley, Jessica L. Roeder, Sebastien Helie, F. Gregory Ashby |
| Abstract |
Considerable evidence suggests that human category learning recruits multiple memory systems. A popular assumption is that procedural memory is used to form stimulus-to-response mappings, whereas declarative memory is used to form and test explicit rules about category membership. The multiple systems framework has been successful in motivating and accounting for a broad array of empirical observations over the past 20 years. Even so, only a couple of studies have examined how the different categorization systems interact. Both previous studies suggest that switching between explicit and procedural responding is extremely difficult. But they leave unanswered the critical questions of whether trial-by-trial system switching is possible, and if so, whether it is qualitatively different than trial-by-trial switching between two explicit tasks. The experiment described in this article addressed these questions. The results (1) confirm that effective trial-by-trial system switching, although difficult, is possible; (2) suggest that switching between tasks mediated by different memory systems is more difficult than switching between two declarative memory tasks; and (3) point to a serious shortcoming of current category-learning theories. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Russia | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 29 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 27% |
| Researcher | 5 | 17% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Unknown | 7 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 12 | 40% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 7% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 7% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 3% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Unknown | 9 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 November 2016.
All research outputs
#18,807,229
of 23,308,124 outputs
Outputs from Psychological Research
#773
of 977 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#306,931
of 418,464 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Psychological Research
#8
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,308,124 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 977 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 418,464 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.