Implicit learning increases preference for predictive visual display

Abstract

We investigated whether implicit learning in a visual search task would influence preferences for visual stimuli. Participants performed a contextual cueing task in which they searched for visual targets, the locations of which were either predicted or not predicted by the positioning of distractors. The speed with which participants located the targets increased across trials more rapidly for predictive displays than for non-predictive displays, consistent with contextual cueing. Participants were subsequently asked to rate the "goodness" of visual displays. The rating results showed that they preferred predictive displays to both non-predictive and novel displays. The participants did not recognize predictive displays any more frequently than they did non-predictive or novel displays. These results suggest that contextual cueing occurred implicitly and that the implicit learning of visual layouts promotes a preference for visual layouts that are predictive of target location.

Humans show a higher preference for stimuli that are predictive relative to those that are predictable

“…The proposal that the brain constantly predicts its own sensory input suggests that we may also value information that supports this process. Two studies indicate that human preferences are indeed biased towards information that is linked to predictive processing (Ogawa & Watanabe, 2011;Trapp et al, 2015). Here, we addressed the question whether preference is higher for information that is predictive or information that can be predicted.…”

“…Over the past decades, researchers have identified several factors that influence our preferences and aesthetic judgments, such as mere exposure (Zajonc, 1980), complexity (Frith & Nias, 1974), contrast (Reber, Winkielmann, & Schwarz, 1996), curviness (Bar & Neta, 2006), or processing fluency (Leder, Belke, Oeberst, & Austin, 2004;Reber, Schwarz, & Winkielman, 2004). Recently, it has been proposed that preference judgments are also linked to the process of prediction (Ogawa & Watanabe, 2011;Trapp, Shenhav, Bitzer & Bar, 2015).…”

“…Indeed, two recent studies have supported this hypothesis. Using a visual search paradigm, Ogawa and Watanabe (2011) showed that humans preferred configurations of distractor stimuli that allowed them to predict the location of a target over configurations that did not. Similarly, Trapp and colleagues (2015) demonstrated how random shapes that had been presented in a fixed predictable context (i.e., always presented in the same group of shapes) were preferred over shapes that had been presented in a random context (i.e., always presented in a different group of shapes).…”

“…However, in both studies, the predictive (i.e., the ability to predict) and predictable (i.e., the possibility to be predicted) aspect of the stimuli was embedded in one and the same stimulus. For example, it remains unclear whether participants' preference for a specific display was because it had helped them to predict the location of a target or because it contained the predictable location (Ogawa and Watanabe, 2011).…”

Disadvantageous associations: Reversible spatial cueing effects in a discrimination task

“…Namely, individuals seem to actually “prefer” predictable information. In a recent study 10 , participants performed a visual search task in which target location could be/could not be predicted by the position of the presented distractors. Interestingly, when asked about goodness of the displays participants preferred the (easier) predictive ones.…”