» Articles » PMID: 25711183

Piecewise Power Laws in Individual Learning Curves

Overview
Specialty Psychology
Date 2015 Feb 26
PMID 25711183
Citations 7
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The notion that human learning follows a smooth power law (PL) of diminishing gains is well-established in psychology. This characteristic is observed when multiple curves are averaged, potentially masking more complex dynamics underpinning the curves of individual learners. Here, we analyzed 25,280 individual learning curves, each comprising 500 measurements of cognitive performance taken from four cognitive tasks. A piecewise PL (PPL) model explained the individual learning curves significantly better than a single PL, controlling for model complexity. The PPL model allows for multiple PLs connected at different points in the learning process. We also explored the transition dynamics between PL curve component pieces. Performance in later pieces typically surpassed that in earlier pieces, after a brief drop in performance at the transition point. The transition rate was negatively associated with age, even after controlling for overall performance. Our results suggest at least two processes at work in individual learning curves: locally, a gradual, smooth improvement, with diminishing gains within a specific strategy, which is modeled well as a PL; and globally, a discrete sequence of strategy shifts, in which each strategy is better in the long term than the ones preceding it. The piecewise extension of the classic PL of practice has implications for both individual skill acquisition and theories of learning.

Citing Articles

Effective engagement in computerized cognitive training for older adults.

Guimaraes A, Lin F, Panizzutti R, Turnbull A Ageing Res Rev. 2025; 104:102650.

PMID: 39755175 PMC: 11807753. DOI: 10.1016/j.arr.2024.102650.


Potential Roles of Teamwork and Unmet Needs on Surgical Learning Curves of Spinal Robotic Screw Placement.

Su Y, Tsai T, Kuo K, Wu C, Tsai C, Lu Y J Multidiscip Healthc. 2022; 15:1971-1978.

PMID: 36105672 PMC: 9464635. DOI: 10.2147/JMDH.S380707.


Stability over time of scores on psychiatric rating scales, questionnaires and cognitive tests in healthy controls.

Stahl K, Adorjan K, Anderson-Schmidt H, Budde M, Comes A, Gade K BJPsych Open. 2022; 8(2):e55.

PMID: 35232513 PMC: 8935911. DOI: 10.1192/bjo.2022.17.


Assessing the functions underlying learning using by-trial and by-participant models: Evidence from two visual perceptual learning paradigms.

Cochrane A, Green C J Vis. 2021; 21(13):5.

PMID: 34905053 PMC: 8684311. DOI: 10.1167/jov.21.13.5.


Inferring latent learning factors in large-scale cognitive training data.

Steyvers M, Schafer R Nat Hum Behav. 2020; 4(11):1145-1155.

PMID: 32868884 DOI: 10.1038/s41562-020-00935-3.


References
1.
Roediger 3rd H, Arnold K . The one-trial learning controversy and its aftermath: remembering Rock (1957). Am J Psychol. 2012; 125(2):127-43. PMC: 4989509. DOI: 10.5406/amerjpsyc.125.2.0127. View

2.
Buschkuehl M, Jaeggi S . Improving intelligence: a literature review. Swiss Med Wkly. 2010; 140(19-20):266-72. DOI: 10.4414/smw.2010.12852. View

3.
Rickard T . Strategy execution in cognitive skill learning: an item-level test of candidate models. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2004; 30(1):65-82. DOI: 10.1037/0278-7393.30.1.65. View

4.
Germine L, Nakayama K, Duchaine B, Chabris C, Chatterjee G, Wilmer J . Is the Web as good as the lab? Comparable performance from Web and lab in cognitive/perceptual experiments. Psychon Bull Rev. 2012; 19(5):847-57. DOI: 10.3758/s13423-012-0296-9. View

5.
Sternberg D, Ballard K, Hardy J, Katz B, Doraiswamy P, Scanlon M . The largest human cognitive performance dataset reveals insights into the effects of lifestyle factors and aging. Front Hum Neurosci. 2013; 7:292. PMC: 3687527. DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00292. View