High and low flexibility learners reach rule acquisition at similar points, so flexibility does not speed rule acquisition in this task¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2020 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Both flexibility groups reached their learning point in the second block (high CF group 244 trials, low CF group 257 trials), with no reported test of the difference. → Feng X 2020

Evidence¶

Feng X 2020¶

Feng X, Perceval GJ, Feng W and Feng C (2020) High Cognitive Flexibility Learners Perform Better in Probabilistic Rule Learning. Front. Psychol. 11:415. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00415

q3 · i? · associational · r2

Descriptive learning-curve analysis of rule learners in the coin-searching task. Both groups reached the learning point in block 2 (high CF 244, low CF 257 trials); the article reports no significance test of this difference.

"The average learning point of all rule learners was 251 trials, which is the 71 st trial in block 2 (this block contains the specific feedback about coin position). Both the high and low flexibility groups reached their learning point in the second block (high CF group – 244, low CF group – 257)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• High cognitive flexibility learners identify the correct probabilistic rule more often than low flexibility learners — related
• High cognitive flexibility learners show significantly higher accuracy than low flexibility learners only after rule acquisition in probabilistic rule learning — related
• After rule learning, low flexibility learners show latency differences across probability conditions while high flexibility learners do not — related
• Rule learners report higher confidence in their described rules than non-learners, but confidence does not differ within flexibility groups — related