An emotion-induced attentional blink elicited by aversively conditioned stimuli.

Smith, Stephen D.; Most, Steven B.; Newsome, Leslie A.; Zald, David H.

doi:10.1037/1528-3542.6.3.523

Cited by 135 publications

(143 citation statements)

References 27 publications

(27 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

132

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Further, found little evidence of this sparing effect for Snodgrass and Vanderwart (1980) images, suggesting that the effect may be isolated to alphanumerical stimuli. Finally, such an explanation is at odds with evidence showing that salient distractors in fact induce a deficit for subsequent targets, similar to that observed in the AB (Most, Chun, Widders, & Zald, 2005;Smith et al, 2006). …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…For example, targets with a degree of learnt salience, such as one's own name (Shapiro, Caldwell, & Sorenson, 1997), a famous face (Jackson & Raymond, 2006), or an emotionally salient word (Anderson, 2005;Anderson & Phelps, 2001) show a reduced impairment relative to more neutral stimuli. Similarly, when a stimulus that has been previously paired with an unpleasant outcome is used as a distractor in an RSVP task, it can automatically generate an impairment for subsequent targets, similar to that observed in the AB (Smith, Most, Newsome, & Zald, 2006). Thus, there is some evidence to suggest that stimuli with either familiarised or conditioned importance gain a competitive advantage under conditions of constrained attention.…”

Section: Timementioning

confidence: 83%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Automaticity and cognitive control in the learned predictiveness effect.

Shone¹,

Harris²,

Livesey³

2015

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cogniti

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Timementioning

confidence: 83%

Automaticity and cognitive control in the learned predictiveness effect.

Shone¹,

Harris²,

Livesey³

2015

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cogniti

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The majority of investigations reviewed indicated that the interaction of the conditions or groups of interest with lag was due to differences between conditions or groups at shorter, but not at longer, lags (e.g., Akyürek, Hommel, & Jolicoeur, 2007;Arend, Johnston, & Shapiro, 2007;Colzato, Slagter, Spapé, & Hommel, 2008;Rokke et al, 2002;Shapiro et al 1997b;Smith, Most, Newsome, & Zald, 2006;Stein et al, 2009). This pattern provides a clear case for concluding that the AB effect, the posttarget impairment confined to a critical period, was modulated (see Fig.…”

Section: Capturing Modulations Of the Ab Effectmentioning

confidence: 99%

A conceptual and methodological framework for measuring and modulating the attentional blink

MacLean

Arnell

2012

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The attentional blink (AB) is a transient attention cost that is shown when report accuracy for a second target (T2) is reduced when T2 is presented within approximately 500 ms of a first target (T1). Thus, by definition an AB is only observed when T2 accuracy is reduced at short relative to long T1-T2 separations, and the magnitude of the AB is reflected in the change in T2 performance across target separations. However, the designs, analyses, and interpretations of several studies of the AB have suggested a lack of clear definitions about what constitutes a demonstration of the AB, what constitutes a modulation of the AB across participant groups or manipulations, and how AB magnitude might best be represented accurately as a single value for a given individual. In this article, we discuss the important conceptual and methodological issues that should be considered when obtaining, analyzing, and interpreting AB data, and we discuss the pros and cons of various approaches while providing suggestions as to how best to validly represent the AB and its modulations.

show abstract

“…After three PS+ and three PS2 trials, there were two CS+ trials paired with the shock. These "booster" trials were included to reduce habituation (e.g., Smith et al 2006;Lim and Pessoa 2008), and data from these trials were not included in any analyses. Three additional PS+ and PS2 trials followed the "booster" trials.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Conceptual similarity promotes generalization of higher order fear learning

Dunsmoor¹,

White²,

LaBar³

2011

Learn. Mem.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We tested the hypothesis that conceptual similarity promotes generalization of conditioned fear. Using a sensory preconditioning procedure, three groups of subjects learned an association between two cues that were conceptually similar, unrelated, or mismatched. Next, one of the cues was paired with a shock. The other cue was then reintroduced to test for fear generalization, as measured by the skin conductance response. Results showed enhanced fear generalization that correlated with trait anxiety levels in the group that learned an association between conceptually similar stimuli. These findings suggest that conceptual representations of conditional stimuli influence human fear learning processes.The idea that many fears originate from an association between neutral and aversive stimuli has continued to serve as the basis for influential accounts of human anxiety disorders (Bouton 2002;Mineka and Zinbarg 2006). However, the nexus of many fears defy a straightforward explanation, since following an aversive experience other stimuli that are indirectly related to the experience oftentimes become feared as well. In some cases, generalizing an acquired fear following an emotional learning episode is predicated on an association between stimuli formed before the emotional experience occurred. This form of stimulus generalization is known as sensory preconditioning (SPC) (Brogden 1939;Kimmel 1977;Gewirtz and Davis 2000), and is an important process whereby the representation of a known stimulus is modified following a salient experience with a related stimulus.A typical SPC procedure occurs in three phases: first, subjects learn to associate two neutral cues-for example, a bell and a light. Next, one of the cues, say the light, is associated with a biologically significant unconditioned stimulus (US), which leads to the development of a conditioned response (CR). The bell is called the preconditioned stimulus (PS) and the light is called the conditioned stimulus (CS). Finally, the PS is presented alone. Despite the fact that it has never predicted the US directly, the PS will often elicit a CR, suggesting that an association was formed during preconditioning between the PS and CS. The majority of SPC studies have been conducted in nonhuman animals (Brogden 1939;Rizley and Rescorla 1972). SPC effects have also been reported in a small number of human fear-conditioning experiments (White and Davey 1989;Vansteenwegen et al. 2000), but human research on this topic is very limited relative to experiments using first-order Pavlovian conditioning procedures. Consequently, the features that promote fear generalization between previously associated stimuli are unknown.A well-known factor important for classical conditioning (Rescorla and Furrow 1977) and stimulus generalization overall is similarity to the CS (Pavlov 1927;McLaren and Mackintosh 2002). Classic experiments of stimulus generalization in animals (reviewed in Honig and Urcuioli 1981) have revealed orderly generalization gradients of conditioned responses that tra...

show abstract

An emotion-induced attentional blink elicited by aversively conditioned stimuli.

Cited by 135 publications

References 27 publications

Automaticity and cognitive control in the learned predictiveness effect.

Automaticity and cognitive control in the learned predictiveness effect.

A conceptual and methodological framework for measuring and modulating the attentional blink

Conceptual similarity promotes generalization of higher order fear learning

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About