{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02450646698434309, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0013614703880190605, 'mean_word_length': 5.621621621621622, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Extrapolation accuracy underestimates rule learning: Evidence from the function-learning paradigm.

Understanding the development of non-linear processes such as economic or population growth is an important prerequisite for informed decisions in those areas. In the function-learning paradigm, people's understanding of the function rule that underlies the to-be predicted process is typically measured by means of extrapolation accuracy. Here we argue, however, that even though accurate extrapolation necessitates rule-learning, the reverse does not necessarily hold: Inaccurate extrapolation does not exclude rule-learning. Experiment 1 shows that more than one third of participants who would be classified as "exemplar-based learners" based on their extrapolation accuracy were able to identify the correct function shape and slope in a rule-selection paradigm, demonstrating accurate understanding of the function rule. Experiment 2 shows that higher proportions of rule learning than ruleapplication in the function-learning paradigm is not due to (i) higher a priori probabilities to guess the correct rule in the rule-selection paradigm; nor is it due to (ii) a lack of simultaneous access to all function values in the function-learning paradigm. We conclude that rule application is not tantamount to rule-learning, and that assessing rule xlearning via extrapolation accuracy underestimates the proportion of rule learners in function-learning experiments.