Once and for all—How people change strategy to ignore irrelevant information in visual tasks

Abstract

Ignoring irrelevant visual information aids efficient interaction with task environments. We studied how people, after practice, start to ignore the irrelevant aspects of stimuli. For this we focused on how information reduction transfers to rarely practised and novel stimuli. In Experiment 1, we compared competing mathematical models on how people cease to fixate on irrelevant parts of stimuli. Information reduction occurred at the same rate for frequent, infrequent, and novel stimuli. Once acquired with some stimuli, it was applied to all. In Experiment 2, simplification of task processing also occurred in a once-for-all manner when spatial regularities were ruled out so that people could not rely on learning which screen position is irrelevant. Apparently, changes in eye movements were an effect of a once-for-all strategy change rather than a cause of it. Overall, the results suggest that participants incidentally acquired knowledge about regularities in the task material and then decided to voluntarily apply it for efficient task processing. Such decisions should be incorporated into accounts of information reduction and other theories of strategy change in skill acquisition.

Crab or lobster? Mental principles underlying the categorization of crustaceans by biology experts and non-experts

“…Although on average our three groups showed similar patterns of categorization, it was still possible that between-group similarities in averaged ratings at each morphing stage nonetheless concealed between-group differences in the function that related morphing stage to category decision (Gaschler et al, 2015). For example, it might have been the case that experts made a more abrupt switch between 'lobster' and 'crab', using fewer intermediate ratings, whereas non-experts perceived a more linear continuum between one category and the other.…”

Task-Irrelevant Expectation Violations in Sequential Manual Actions: Evidence for a “Check-after-Surprise” Mode of Visual Attention and Eye-Hand Decoupling

“…It is likely, that even if a new deviant had been introduced, no further or a far smaller surprise effect would have arisen. The introduction of a deviant should change the expectation about possible task elements “once and for all” as Gaschler et al (2015) put it. On the basis of these three considerations, the gaze modification observed in the present study constitutes a check-after-surprise effect.…”

Abrupt Strategy Change Underlies Gradual Performance Change: Bayesian Hierarchical Models of Component and Aggregate Strategy Use

“…Third, researchers have rarely used formal statistical models of individual differences in strategy change. Researchers have often relied on descriptive statistics (John & Lallement, 1997;Siegler, 1988aSiegler, , 1988bSiegler, , 1991 and piece-wise analyses where models are fit separately for each individual (e.g., Gaschler et al, 2015). This often overfits the data, fails to pool parameter estimates over individuals, and does not model individual differences in strategy change.…”

“…Previous modeling approaches have had various limitations (Crossman, 1959;Gaschler et al, 2015;F. J. Lee & Anderson, 2001).…”

“…Lee & Anderson, 2001;Logan, 1988;Tenison & Anderson, 2016). Some research suggests that gradual changes in performance are an artifact of group-level analysis and that individuallevel learning curves may show discontinuities when abrupt changes in strategy use occur (Gaschler, Marewski, & Frensch, 2015;Haider & Frensch, 2002;Rickard, 1997Rickard, , 2004. However, even at the individual-level, learning curves rarely display abrupt changes (Anglim & Wynton, 2015;Heathcote, Brown, & Mewhort, 2000).…”