Influence of stimulus complexity on the specificity of visual perceptual learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the structure and function of the human visual system are determined in large part during early development, there is ample evidence for adult plasticity as well. Such plasticity has important consequences for restoring vision after cortical damage and for improving function in healthy people. Although these applications have shown promising results, they are often limited by pathological specificity: improvements obtained through perceptual training fail to generalize beyond the trained stimulus feature or location. Efforts to reduce specificity have focused on the design of training tasks, but less is known about the effects of stimulus structure on the specificity of perceptual learning. Here, we leverage physiological findings from the dorsal visual pathway of the primate brain to explore the hypothesis that learning specificity is related to the complexity of the training stimulus. Specifically, because neurons in higher-level structures of the dorsal visual pathway exhibit little stimulus specificity, we reasoned that training with more complex stimuli would reduce the specificity of learning. We trained human observers on stimuli of varying complexity, ranging from simple sinewave gratings to complex optic flow fields. Our results show that training with more complex stimuli reduces specificity for spatial position and stimulus features. Such changes are associated with increased spatial integration. These findings were captured by a computational “reweighting” model that decoded the outputs of simulated neurons in areas middle temporal (MT) and medial superior temporal (MST) of the primate visual cortex. Our results suggest that the addition of more complex stimuli into perceptual learning paradigms provides a simple and effective way to minimize specificity in learning.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".