Shape search and N-back tasks show no sequence position effect in session-level analysis¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? For the shape search and N-back tasks, the model assuming no sequence position effect fit best. → Jia Yang 2025

Evidence¶

Jia Yang 2025¶

Jia Yang, Fang-Fang Yan, Tingting Wang, Zile Wang, Qingshang Ma, Jinmei Xiao, Xianyuan Yang, Zhong-Lin Lu & Chang-Bing Huang. (2025). Anterograde interference in multitask perceptual learning. npj Science of Learning. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-025-00312-7

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Session-by-session LMM model comparison in Experiment 1A found M1 best for both tasks: "For the shape search andN-back tasks, M1 was the bestfitting model, indicating no significant effect of sequence position" (Shape: p = 0.26; N-back: p = 0.30).

"For the shape search andN-back tasks, M1 was the bestfitting model, indicating no significant effect of sequence position"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Later sequence position worsens initial performance in low- and mid-level perceptual tasks (Experiment 1A) — related
• Experiment 2 replicates Vernier anterograde interference and Shape independence with no retrograde interference — related
• Later sequence position slows general learning rate in the face view discrimination task — related
• Extreme-PGS subgroups show mostly parallel learning trajectories, with task exceptions: for N-Back the low-PGS group learned more and ultimately performed better than the high-PGS group — related