Combined influence of valence and statistical learning on the control of attention: Evidence for independent sources of bias

Kim, Haena; Anderson, Brian A.

doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104554

Cited by 22 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In this way, the involuntary control of attention is optimized for both the detection of informative signals and the automated repetition of a cue-triggered orienting response, with a dedicated circuit optimized for the support of each of these needs. There is some evidence that the influence of statistical learning on the involuntary orienting of attention may be subserved by a third distinct mechanism of selection history-dependent attentional control (Kim & Anderson, 2021), although such findings are too preliminary to convincingly distinguish its influence from the two mechanisms previously discussed and more research is needed on the matter.…”

Section: A Revised Model Of Adaptive Attentional Controlmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Over the past couple of decades, considerable effort has been undertaken to develop theoretical models of attention that fractionate the mental process, highlighting dissociations and introducing distinctions. This includes long-standing debates contrasting goal-contingent and stimulus-driven priorities (e.g., Folk et al, 1992; Luck et al, 2021; Theeuwes, 1992, 2010), distinctions between the dorsal and ventral attention network (Corbetta & Shulman, 2002), models of habit-like influences on attention (e.g., Jiang, 2018), the introduction of a trichotomy view of attentional control contrasting the influence of goals, salience, and selection history (Awh et al, 2012), and subsequent mechanistic distinctions within the domain of selection history (e.g., Kim & Anderson, 2019a, 2021). Such distinctions are meaningful and should certainly be incorporated into models of attentional control.…”

Section: The Cost-benefit Framework Revisitedmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

An adaptive view of attentional control.

Anderson

2021

American Psychologist

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although humans can voluntarily direct their attention to particular stimuli, attention can at times be involuntarily allocated to stimuli and such attentional capture can result in unproductive distraction. A challenge to any comprehensive theory of attention is to explain how involuntary mechanisms of attentional control and their potential to produce distraction are ultimately reflective of an adaptation. Traditional arguments on this topic have appealed to a generalized cost-benefit accounting. Specifically, the cost of misallocating attention to the kinds of stimuli prioritized by involuntary mechanisms of attentional control over the long run is argued to be small in comparison with the potentially life-altering cost of failing to attend to such stimuli, which involuntary mechanisms of attentional control guard against. Our understanding of these mechanisms has undergone a revolution in recent years, findings from which point to a much more sophisticated adaptation that systematically maximizes benefits associated with automating the control of attention while minimizing unwanted distraction. In this review, I provide an updated model of the adaptive nature of involuntary mechanisms of attentional control, outlining concrete principles governing the management of specific costs and benefits. I conclude that distraction does not in general constitute a failure of attentional control but rather reflects the joint product of these adaptive principles.

show abstract

Section: A Revised Model Of Adaptive Attentional Controlmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Cost-benefit Framework Revisitedmentioning

confidence: 99%

An adaptive view of attentional control.

Anderson

2021

American Psychologist

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…performance. For example, in the current study (as well as many of the investigations into the influence of incentive value associations on visual prioritisation(Anderson, Laurent, and Yantis 2011;Garner, Bowman, and Raymond 2021;Itthipuripat et al 2019;Kim and Anderson 2021;Le Pelley et al, 2015;Le Pelley et al, 2022;MacLean, Diaz, and Giesbrecht 2016;Stănişor et al 2013; Stankevich and Geng 2014)), incentive value is not predictive of target location under the key testing conditions, and therefore offers no benefit for finding the target. ItGarner et al …”

mentioning

confidence: 55%

“…Although these two sources of expectation have comparable influences on visual priorities, i.e. improved performance at a signalled location at the expense of performance at other locations, a growing number of studies suggest that the influence of spatial and incentive value expectations are exerted via independent mechanisms ( Stankevich and Geng 2014 ; Garner, Bowman, and Raymond 2021 ; Kim and Anderson 2021 ; Le Pelley et al, 2022 ). For example, Garner et al ( 2021 ) parametrically manipulated spatial certainty by adjusting the reliability of a central spatial cue, and pit these cues against high and low value target and distractor locations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the Influence of Spatial and Value Attentional Cues Across Individuals

Garner¹,

Lovell-Kane²,

Carroll³

et al. 2022

Journal of Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The visual world provides a myriad of cues that can be used to direct information processing. How does the brain integrate predictive information from disparate sources to modify visual priorities, and are combination strategies consistent across individuals? Previous evidence shows that cues predictive of the value of a visually guided task (incentive value) and cues that signal where targets may occur (spatial certainty) act independently to bias attention. Anticipatory accounts propose that both cues are encoded into an attentional priority map, whereas the counterfactual account argues that incentive value cues instead induce a reactive encoding of losses based on the direction of attention. We adjudicate between these alternatives and further determine whether there are individual differences in how attentional cues are encoded. 149 participants viewed two coloured placeholders that specified the potential value of correctly identifying an imminent target. Prior to the target's presentation, an endogenous spatial cue indicated the target's likely location. The anticipatory and counterfactual accounts were used to motivate parametric regressors that were compared in their explanatory power of the data, at the group level and on data stratified by a clustering algorithm. Clustering revealed 2 subtypes; whereas all individuals use spatial certainty cues a subset does not use incentive value cues. When incentive value cues are used their influence reflects a counterfactual loss function. The data support the counterfactual account and show that theories of motivated attention must account for the non-uniform influence of incentive value on visual priorities.

show abstract

“…Electrophysiological and neuroimaging research has also been consistent with the idea that reward has a rapid influence on the visual system, with reward modulation of stimulus-driven activity being observed as early as sensory cortex (Hickey et al, 2010; MacLean & Giesbrecht, 2015; Serences, 2008; Serences & Saproo, 2010; but see Tankelevitch et al, 2020). Moreover, the VMAC effect has been demonstrated to be largely immune to goal-directed attentional control, in that the attentional bias to reward signals persists even when explicit instructions about the counterproductive consequences of orienting to the reward-signaling distractor are provided (Kim & Anderson, 2019; Pearson et al, 2015), and under conditions in which capture by physically salient stimuli can be suppressed (Kim & Anderson, 2021; Le Pelley et al, 2020; Pearson et al, 2020). Together, these findings suggest that signals of reward are afforded special priority within the visual system, such that they rapidly and automatically capture our attention and gaze, even when suppressing such capture would be in our best interest.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reward encourages reactive, goal-directed suppression of attention.

Pearson

Pelley

2021

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Stimuli that signal large reward have an increased likelihood of capturing attention and gaze relative to stimuli that signal small or no reward, even when capture counterproductively prevents reward delivery. These findings suggest that a stimulus's signaling relationship with reward (the contingency between stimulus presentation and reward delivery) is a potent influence on selective attention. Recent studies have also implicated a stimulus's response relationship with reward (the contingency between orienting to a stimulus and reward delivery) in reducing capture by signals of reward. Here we show that this response pathway modulates capture by encouraging a reactive, goal-directed distractor suppression process. In a rewarded visual search task, participants demonstrated an oculomotor preference away from a distractor that had a negative response relationship with high reward (looking at the distractor caused reward omission) and toward a distractor that had no such negative response relationship, providing evidence for the role of the response relationship in suppressing capture by reward-related distractors. Analysis of the temporal dynamics of eye movements suggests that this distractor suppression process operates via a reactive mechanism of rapid disengagement (Experiment 1). Consistent with a goaldirected mechanism, the influence of the response relationship was eliminated when reward was unavailable (Experiment 2). These findings highlight the multifaceted role of stimulus-reward relationships in attentional selection. Public Significance StatementThis study highlights the complex relationship between reward and attentional selection. Stimuli that signal rewarding outcomes come to automatically capture attention and gaze, even when such capture is counter to an individual's goals. However, when there are negative reward-related consequences for attending to a stimulus, the rate of capture can be reduced.

show abstract

Combined influence of valence and statistical learning on the control of attention: Evidence for independent sources of bias

Cited by 22 publications

References 35 publications

An adaptive view of attentional control.

An adaptive view of attentional control.

On the Influence of Spatial and Value Attentional Cues Across Individuals

Reward encourages reactive, goal-directed suppression of attention.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About