Learning to identify crowded letters: Does the learning depend on the frequency of training?

► Perceptual learning compared for three training schedules: daily, weekly and biweekly. ► All observers received the same amount of training: six sessions of 1000 trials each. ► Magnitudes of improvement following training were similar for the three training groups. ► Transferred improvements to other tasks were also similar for the three training groups. ► Perceptual learning on a weekly or biweekly schedule was as effective as a daily one. Performance for many visual tasks improves with training. The magnitude of improvement following training depends on the training task, number of trials per training session and the total amount of training. Does the magnitude of improvement also depend on the frequency of training sessions? In this study, we compared the learning effect for three groups of normally sighted observers who repeatedly practiced the task of identifying crowded letters in the periphery for six sessions (1000 trials per session), according to three different training schedules—one group received one session of training everyday, the second group received a training session once a week and the third group once every 2weeks. Following six sessions of training, all observers improved in their performance of identifying crowded letters in the periphery. Most importantly, the magnitudes of improvement were similar across the three training groups. The improvement was accompanied by a reduction in the spatial extent of crowding, an increase in the size of visual span and a reduction in letter-size threshold. The magnitudes of these accompanied improvements were also similar across the three training groups. Our finding that the effectiveness of visual perceptual learning is similar for daily, weekly and biweekly training has significant implication for adopting perceptual learning as an option to improve visual functions for clinical patients.