This seems like an elaborate way to state the really obvious, and doesn't really do much IMO to get at the specific question they're trying to answer. People learn from feedback...I mean, duh. But the issue is why we value one source of feedback versus another, which this study doesn't seem to address at all. I also think the focus on the most recent feedback is misleading in this case. If people guessed wrong about a shape a bunch, but if as they adjusted they started consistently getting it right, why wouldn't they base their definition of this made-up word on the ones they got right? I don't understand why this is surprising, or why it has anything to do with the bigger issue they're attempting to study.