Categorical consistency facilitates implicit learning of color-number associations.

In making sense of the environment, we implicitly learn to associate stimulus attributes that frequently occur together. Is such learning favored for categories over individual items? Here, we introduce a novel paradigm for directly comparing category- to item-level learning. In a category-level experiment, even numbers (2,4,6,8) had a high-probability of appearing in blue, and odd numbers (3,5,7,9) in yellow. Associative learning was measured by the relative performance on trials with low-probability (p = .09) to high-probability (p = .91) number colors. There was strong evidence for associative learning: low-probability performance was impaired (40ms RT increase and 8.3% accuracy decrease relative to high-probability). This was not the case in an item-level experiment with a different group of participants, in which high-probability colors were non-categorically assigned (blue: 2,3,6,7; yellow: 4,5,8,9; 9ms RT increase and 1.5% accuracy increase). The categorical advantage was upheld in an explicit color association report (83% accuracy vs. 43% at the item-level). These results support a conceptual view of perception and suggest empirical bases of categorical, not item-level, color labeling of learning materials.