We hypothesized that recognition performance would improve from pre- to post-test (cf., Farrow and Abernethy, 2002; Williams et al., 2003; Smeeton et al., 2005). This hypothesis was supported. Participants became more sensitive in distinguishing previously seen from novel patterns on the post- relative to the pre-test. However, contrary to our second hypothesis, there was no main effect of group and no Group × Time of Test interaction, indicating that the mode of instruction did not affect how well participants learned to recognize patterns. This pattern of findings closely mirrors that reported by Gorman and Farrow (2009) who showed significant improvements from pre- to post-test but reported that the improvements observed in the training groups did not differ when compared with the placebo and control groups. It is often suggested that the absence of significant effects is due to the small sample size and relatively short intervention period. However, in the current study, we present one of the most extensive perceptual training interventions conducted in the literature. The intervention period (2 weeks) was longer than, or comparable to, other studies which have trained perceptual skills and reported significant effects (e.g., 3 days, Abernethy et al., 2012; 7 days, Hagemann et al., 2006; 7 days, Ryu et al., 2013; 3 weeks, Serpell et al., 2011; and 45 min, Williams et al., 2002). Over the course of the intervention period, participants were exposed to 120 training trials which is a higher number than employed in other similar perceptual training studies (e.g., 64 trials, Ryu et al., 2013; 40 trials, Serpell et al., 2011; 8 trials; Williams et al., 2002; and 30 trials, Smeeton et al., 2005).