Context modulation of learned attention deployment
Tóm tắt
In three experiments, we investigated the contextual control of attention in human discrimination learning. In each experiment, participants initially received discrimination training in which the cues from Dimension A were relevant in Context 1 but irrelevant in Context 2, whereas the cues from Dimension B were irrelevant in Context 1 but relevant in Context 2. In Experiment 1, the same cues from each dimension were used in Contexts 1 and 2, whereas in Experiments 2 and 3, the cues from each dimension were changed across contexts. In each experiment, participants were subsequently shifted to a transfer discrimination involving novel cues from either dimension, to assess the contextual control of attention. In Experiment 1, measures of eye gaze during the transfer discrimination revealed that Dimension A received more attention than Dimension B in Context 1, whereas the reverse occurred in Context 2. Corresponding results indicating the contextual control of attention were found in Experiments 2 and 3, in which we used the speed of learning (associability) as an indirect marker of learned attentional changes. Implications of our results for current theories of learning and attention are discussed.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Bakeman, R. (2005). Recommended effect size statistics for repeated measures designs. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 379–384. doi:10.3758/BF03192707
Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate—A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B, 57, 289–300.
Feldmann-Wüstefeld, T., Uengoer, M., & Schubö, A. (2015). You see what you have learned. Evidence for an interrelation of associative learning and visual selective attention. Psychophysiology, 52, 1483–1497. doi:10.1111/psyp.12514
George, D. N., & Kruschke, J. K. (2012). Contextual modulation of attention in human category learning. Learning & Behavior, 40, 530–541. doi:10.3758/s13420-012-0072-8
Greenhouse, S. W., & Geisser, S. (1959). On methods in the analysis of profile data. Psychometrika, 24, 95–112.
Griffiths, O., & Le Pelley, M. E. (2009). Attentional changes in blocking are not a consequence of lateral inhibition. Learning & Behavior, 37, 27–41. doi:10.3758/LB.37.1.27
Hogarth, L., Dickinson, A., Austin, A., Brown, C., & Duka, T. (2008). Attention and expectation in human predictive learning: The role of uncertainty. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 1658–1668. doi:10.1080/17470210701643439
Kamin, L. J. (1968). “Attention-like” processes in classical conditioning. In M. R. Jones (Ed.), Miami Symposium on the Prediction of Behavior: Aversive stimulation (pp. 9–31). Miami, FL: University of Miami Press.
Kaye, H., & Pearce, J. M. (1984). The strength of the orienting response during Pavlovian conditioning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 10, 90–109. doi:10.1037/0097-7403.10.1.90
Kruschke, J. K. (1992). ALCOVE: An exemplar-based connectionist model of category learning. Psychological Review, 99, 22–44. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.99.1.22
Kruschke, J. K. (2001). Toward a unified model of attention in associative learning. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 45, 812–863. doi:10.1006/jmps.2000.1354
Kruschke, J. K., & Blair, N. J. (2000). Blocking and backward blocking involve learned inattention. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7, 636–645. doi:10.3758/BF03213001
Le Pelley, M. E. (2004). The role of associative history in models of associative learning: A selective review and a hybrid model. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57B, 193–243. doi:10.1080/02724990344000141
Le Pelley, M. E., Beesley, T., & Griffiths, O. (2011). Overt attention and predictiveness in human contingency learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 37, 220–229. doi:10.1037/a0021384
Le Pelley, M. E., Mitchell, C. J., Beesley, T., George, D. N., & Wills, A. J. (2016). Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 142, 1111–1140. doi:10.1037/bul0000064
Lucke, S., Lachnit, H., Koenig, S., & Uengoer, M. (2013). The informational value of contexts affects context-dependent learning. Learning & Behavior, 41, 285–297. doi:10.3758/s13420-013-0104-z
Mackintosh, N. J. (1975). A theory of attention: Variations in the associability of stimuli with reinforcement. Psychological Review, 82, 276–298. doi:10.1037/h0076778
Mackintosh, N. J., & Turner, C. (1971). Blocking as a function of novelty of CS and predictability of UCS. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 23, 359–366. doi:10.1080/14640747108400245
Mitchell, C. J., Griffiths, O., Seetoo, J., & Lovibond, P. F. (2012). Attentional mechanisms in learned predictiveness. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 38, 191–202. doi:10.1037/a0027385
Pearce, J. M., George, D. N., & Redhead, E. S. (1998). The role of attention in the solution of conditional discriminations. In N. A. Schmajuk & P. C. Holland (Eds.), Occasion setting: Associative learning and cognition in animals. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Pearce, J. M., & Hall, G. (1980). A model for Pavlovian learning: Variations in the effectiveness of conditioned but not of unconditioned stimuli. Psychological Review, 87, 532–552. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.87.6.532
Pearce, J. M., & Mackintosh, N. J. (2010). Two theories of attention: A review and a possible integration. In C. J. Mitchell & M. E. Le Pelley (Eds.), Attention and associative learning: From brain to behaviour (pp. 11–39). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Sutherland, N. S., & Mackintosh, N. J. (1971). Mechanisms of animal discrimination learning. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Uengoer, M., & Lachnit, H. (2012). Modulation of attention in discrimination learning: The roles of stimulus relevance and stimulus–outcome correlation. Learning & Behavior, 40, 117–127. doi:10.3758/s13420-011-0049-z
Uengoer, M., Lachnit, H., Lotz, A., Koenig, S., & Pearce, J. M. (2013). Contextual control of attentional allocation in human discrimination learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 39, 56–66. doi:10.1037/a0030599