Processing time increases more for novel than familiar stimuli in algorithm-trained groups than in the Control group, while overall processing time does not differ by group¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q3 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? A significant Stimulus Type × Group interaction on processing time, with novel-stimulus increases of +3.05 s (Reversed), +2.53 s (Traditional), and +0.83 s (Control); no effect size is printed for the interaction contrast. → Kucinkas 2025 q3 i3 A significant main effect of Stimulus Type on processing time with a large printed effect size (partial eta-squared 0.633); the main effect of Group was not significant (η²ₚ = 0.066). → Kucinkas 2025 (2)

Evidence¶

Kucinkas 2025¶

Kucinkas, A., Retsa, C., Meijer, P. B. L., Wallace, M. T., Gori, M. & Murray, M. M. (2025). Learning visual to auditory sensory substitution reveals flexibility in image to sound mapping. npj Science of Learning. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-025-00385-4

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Evaluation-phase mixed ANOVA on processing time (seconds from response-option presentation to answer selection) with 60 sighted adults; "the Reversed group showed the largest increase in processing time for novel stimuli (+3.05 seconds)"; no effect size printed for this contrast, so impact is null.

"the Reversed group showed the largest increase in processing time for novel stimuli (+3.05 seconds), followed by the Traditional group (+2.53 seconds). In contrast, the Control group exhibited a smaller, though still statistically significant, increase (+0.83 seconds)."

Kucinkas 2025 (2)¶

Kucinkas, A., Retsa, C., Meijer, P. B. L., Wallace, M. T., Gori, M. & Murray, M. M. (2025). Learning visual to auditory sensory substitution reveals flexibility in image to sound mapping. npj Science of Learning. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-025-00385-4

q3 · i3 · causal · r2

Main effect from the same processing-time ANOVA; "participants took significantly longer to process novel stimuli compared to familiar stimuli", with printed effect size η²ₚ = 0.633 (partial eta-squared = 0.633), a large effect. The Group main effect was not significant (η²ₚ = 0.066).

"A significant main effect of Stimulus Type was found, F(1,57) = 98.337; p < 0.001; η²ₚ = 0.633, indicating that participants took significantly longer to process novel stimuli compared to familiar stimuli."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Auditory Processing — outcome: instruction changes it
• Sensory Integration — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• Recognition accuracy is higher for familiar than novel stimuli across all mapping groups, with the familiar-novel difference consistent across groups — related
• Novel stimuli are recognized above chance only by the Traditional and Reversed algorithm groups, not by the Control group — related
• Structured algorithmic mappings (Traditional and Reversed) produce higher first-attempt learning accuracy than an arbitrary single-tone mapping in visual-to-auditory SSD learning — related
• Both the Traditional and Reversed algorithm groups significantly outperform a single-tone Control group in soundscape recognition accuracy, without differing from each other — related
• Algorithm-group participants report significantly higher soundscape visualizability than Control participants, while group differences in strategy use, confidence, and error awareness are not statistically significant — related