Changes in visual search efficiency on the transitive inference task were attributable to test–retest effects rather than reasoning instruction¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr2·q3
Currency · newest study 2018 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q3 i? The visual search gaze metric improved in the Reasoning group but the Group×Time model was not supported; moderate support favored the main effect of Time, suggesting test–retest effects across both groups. → Belén C. Guerra-Carrillo and Silvia A. Bunge 2018
Evidence¶
Belén C. Guerra-Carrillo and Silvia A. Bunge 2018¶
Belén C. Guerra-Carrillo and Silvia A. Bunge. (2018). Eye gaze patterns reveal how reasoning skills improve with experience. npj Science of Learning 3:18. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-018-0035-8
q3 · i? · causal · r2
Bayesian models on the visual search metric (number of fixations before homing in on relevant scales); the Reasoning group showed moderate evidence of improvement (BF10 ≈ 6.51) but the Comprehension group did not, and the interaction model was not supported.
"there was moderate support for the main effect of Time (BF 10 ≈ 4.01 ± 1.14%). These results suggest that changes in visual search were likely due to individual differences and test –retest effects present across both groups, rather than to an effect of reasoning instruction/practice"
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Reasoning instruction produced a larger improvement than reading comprehension instruction in the ocular metric of relational thinking on the transitive inference task — related
- Both LSAT course groups became faster at solving transitive inference problems between pre- and post-test, with the strongest model containing only an effect of Time — related
- Across the full sample, individual differences in response-time reductions were best explained by a model combining relational thinking, relational integration, and visual search changes, with relational thinking the strongest single predictor — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
visual-search-gain-test-retest-not-instruction |
title |
Changes in visual search efficiency on the transitive inference task were attributable to test–retest effects rather than reasoning instruction |
description |
Changes in visual search efficiency on the transitive inference task were attributable to test–retest effects rather than reasoning instruction |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2018 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-26 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — belén-c-guerra-carrillo-and-silvia-a-bunge-2018 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.