Back

What group averages conceal: functional heterogeneity in human eyeblink habituation

Perez, O. D.; Cancino, N.; Hermosilla, D.; Soto, F. A.; Vogel, E. H.

2026-06-25 animal behavior and cognition
10.64898/2026.06.21.733594 bioRxiv
Show abstract

In animal learning research, learning is often represented by plotting a behavioral measure as a function of training trials. A particularly clear case is habituation, a basic form of learning in which repeated presentation of a stimulus produces a decrement in responding. Although retention tests provide the strongest basis for evaluating durable habituation once short-lived performance effects have dissipated, the pattern of response change across stimulus repetitions, or habituation curve, remains theoretically and empirically relevant because it is used to characterize determinants of habituation, individual and clinical profiles, and functional forms, including linear, curvilinear, asymptotic, and mixed incremental-decremental patterns of responding. However, group averaged curves may conceal substantial individual heterogeneity. Here, we analyzed archived human eyeblink habituation data from 157 participants to ask whether the curve shape selected for the group average reflects the curve shapes observed at the individual level. Five candidate functions were fitted separately to each participant and to the corresponding group average. No single function characterized most individuals. More importantly, the model selected for the group average differed from the most frequent individual model in all four groups. When data were pooled across groups, the average favored a dual-process form, a shape that matched the individual plurality in none of them. Simulation analyses showed that averaging heterogeneous individual trajectories can itself produce a group curve that favors a more complex model. Our findings show that group averaged habituation curves should not be treated as direct descriptions of the typical individual trajectory.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 13%
15.0%
2
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 6%
12.8%
3
Journal of Neurophysiology
302 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
12.4%
4
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 7%
7.8%
5
PLOS Computational Biology
1863 papers in training set
Top 7%
5.4%
50% of probability mass above
6
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2444 papers in training set
Top 9%
5.4%
7
Psychological Review
19 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
5.1%
8
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
135 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
4.8%
9
Nature Human Behaviour
95 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
3.2%
10
Behavioral Neuroscience
25 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.7%
11
Communications Psychology
22 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.1%
12
Journal of Vision
110 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.7%
13
eneuro
439 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.3%
14
The Journal of Neuroscience
1025 papers in training set
Top 8%
1.3%
15
Animal Cognition
23 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.1%
16
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 53%
1.1%
17
PLOS Biology
486 papers in training set
Top 10%
1.0%
18
Experimental Brain Research
53 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.8%
19
Journal of The Royal Society Interface
235 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
20
Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
49 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.8%
21
Cognition
47 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.8%
22
Cortex
119 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%
23
Behavioural Brain Research
77 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%
24
Neuropsychologia
85 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%