In novel contexts, learning is biased toward cues previously experienced as predictive compared with cues previously experienced as nonpredictive. This is known as learned predictiveness. A recent finding has shown that instructions issued about the causal status of cues influences the expression of learned predictiveness, suggesting that controlled, volitional processes play a role in this effect. Three experiments are reported further investigating the effects of instructional manipulations on learned predictiveness. Experiment 1 confirms the influence of inferential processes, extending previous work to suggest that instructions affect associative memory as well as causal reasoning. Experiments 2 and 3 used a procedure designed to tease apart inferential and automatic contributions to the bias by presenting instructed causes that were previously predictive and previously nonpredictive. The results demonstrate that the prior predictiveness of cues influences subsequent learning over and above the effect of explicit instruction. However, it appears that the relationship between explicit instruction and predictive history is interactive rather than additive. Potential explanations for this interactivity are discussed.

We used the attentional blink (AB) paradigm to investigate the processing stage at which extraction of summary statistics from visual stimuli ("ensemble coding") occurs. Experiment 1 examined whether ensemble coding requires attentional engagement with the items in the ensemble. Participants performed two sequential tasks on each trial: gender discrimination of a single face (T1) and estimating the average emotional expression of an ensemble of four faces (or of a single face, as a control condition) as T2. Ensemble coding was affected by the AB when the tasks were separated by a short temporal lag. In Experiment 2, the order of the tasks was reversed to test whether ensemble coding requires more working-memory resources, and therefore induces a larger AB, than estimating the expression of a single face. Each condition produced a similar magnitude AB in the subsequent gender-discrimination T2 task. Experiment 3 additionally investigated whether the previous results were due to participants adopting a subsampling strategy during the ensemble-coding task. Contrary to this explanation, we found different patterns of performance in the ensemble-coding condition and a condition in which participants were instructed to focus on only a single face within an ensemble. Taken together, these findings suggest that ensemble coding emerges automatically as a result of the deployment of attentional resources across the ensemble of stimuli, prior to information being consolidated in working memory.

No abstract