Learned predictiveness influences rapid attentional capture: Evidence from the dot probe task.

Abstract

Attentional theories of associative learning and categorization propose that learning about the predictiveness of a stimulus influences the amount of attention that is paid to that stimulus. Three experiments tested this idea by looking at the extent to which stimuli that had previously been experienced as predictive or nonpredictive in a categorization task were able to capture attention in a dot probe task. Consistent with certain attentional theories of learning, responses to the dot probe were faster when it appeared in a location cued by a predictive stimulus compared to a location cued by a nonpredictive stimulus. This result was obtained only with short (250-ms or 350-ms) but not long (1,000-ms) delays between onset of the stimuli and the dot probe, suggesting that the observed spatial cuing effect reflects the operation of a relatively rapid, automatic process. These findings are consistent with the approach to the relationship between attention and learning taken by the class of models exemplified by Mackintosh's (1975) theory.

Discrimination Reversal Facilitates Contextual Conditioning in Rats’ Appetitive conditioning

“…In agreement with this idea, recent research has found that human participants spent more time looking at good predictors than looking at poor predictors (Le Pelley, Beesley, & Griffiths, 2011; but see Hogarth et al 2008). Human participants have also found to show faster reaction times to predictive than to non-predictive cues (Le Pelley, Vadillo, & Luque, 2013). However, it is also true that in situations with high level of uncertainty participants spent more time looking at cues which results are uncertain (Beesley, et al, 2015).…”

Relative prediction error and protection from attentional blink in human associative learning

“…Our interest in this effect was motivated by the possibility of obtaining a more specific characterization of attentional changes during learning than can be obtained using indirect measures. Already it was , 2013;Wills et al, 2007;Wilson et al, 1992) supposed that the learning rates for both CSn and CSr were adjusted to a lower limiting value, hence their equivalence. However, additional explanation is still required for the failure to see a significant difference between CSp and CSr.…”

“…Already it was known that stimulus sampling and visual attention changes can occur (e.g. Kruschke, Kappenman, & Hetrick, 2005;Le Pelley et al, 2013;Wills et al, 2007;Wilson et al, 1992) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Although the difference between CSp and CSn on AB in Experiment 2 was clear some comments on the methodology and theoretical interpretation are warranted. We attribute the difference in the results of Experiments 1 and 2 to the increased weighting of relative prediction error consequent to the introduction of distinctive comparator stimuli in the RSVP stream.…”

“…Some studies inferred attentional change using speed of learning as an indirect measure of attention with more rapid learning implying increased attention, but did not give any further information about the characteristics of any attentional change (see also Le Pelley, Vadillo, & Luque, 2013). This approach was used by, for example, Durlach and Mackintosh (1986) to study intradimensional and extra-dimensional shift learning.…”

“…However, more attention could be achieved in different ways, for example, greater active sampling of a stimulus or more effective processing of an already sampled stimulus. We therefore define direct measures of attention as those which serve to characterize the nature of attentional change in terms of the psychological mechanism employed to facilitate processing (Le Pelley et al, 2013). Durlach and Mackintosh (1986) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Attentional Blink 6 orientation towards the light (rearing, sniffing, forepaw contact) declined with trials whilst the light became established as a predictor of the tone but when the light-alone presentations began there was a dramatic increase in orientation to the light, indicating more attention coincident with the increase in predictive error produced by the light-alone trials.…”