Learning & Behavior

, Volume 46, Issue 3, pp 320–326 | Cite as

Attention toward contexts modulates context-specificity of behavior in human predictive learning: Evidence from the n-back task

  • Metin Uengoer
  • Sara Lucke
  • Harald Lachnit


According to the attentional theory of context processing (ATCP), learning becomes context specific when acquired under conditions that promote attention toward contextual stimuli regardless of whether attention deployment is guided by learning experience or by other factors unrelated to learning. In one experiment with humans, we investigated whether performance in a predictive learning task can be brought under contextual control by means of a secondary task that was unrelated to predictive learning, but supposed to modulate participants’ attention toward contexts. Initially, participants acquired cue-outcome relationships presented in contexts that were each composed of two elements from two dimensions. Acquisition training in the predictive learning task was combined with a one-back task that required participants to match across consecutive trials context elements belonging to one of the two dimensions. During a subsequent test, we observed that acquisition behavior in the predictive learning task was disrupted by changing the acquisition context along the dimension that was relevant for the one-back task, while there was no evidence for context specificity of predictive learning when the acquisition context was changed along the dimension that was irrelevant for the one-back task. Our results support the generality of the principles advocated by ATCP.


Human learning Acquisition Context Attention N-back task 



This research was supported by Grant LA 564/22-2 from the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft) to Harald Lachnit.


  1. Aristizabal, J. A., Ramos-Álvarez, M. M., Callejas-Aguilera, J. E., & Rosas, J. M. (2016). Attention to irrelevant contexts decreases as training increases: Evidence from eye-fixations in a human predictive learning task. Behavioural Processes, 124, 66–73. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bernal-Gamboa, R., Rosas, J. M., & Callejas-Aguilera, J. E. (2014). Experiencing extinction within a task makes nonextinguished information learned within a different task context-dependent. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21(3), 803–808. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bonardi, C., Honey, R. C., & Hall, G. (1990). Context specificity of conditioning in flavor-aversion learning: Extinction and blocking tests. Animal Learning & Behavior, 18(3), 229–237. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bouton, M. E. (1993). Context, time, and memory retrieval in the interference paradigms of Pavlovian learning. Psychological Bulletin, 114(1), 80–99. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bouton, M. E. (1994). Conditioning, remembering, and forgetting. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 20(3), 219–231. Google Scholar
  6. Darby, R. J., & Pearce, J. M. (1995). Effects of context on responding during a compound stimulus. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 21(2), 143–154. PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Greenhouse, S. W., & Geisser, S. (1959). On methods in the analysis of profile data. Psychometrika, 24, 95–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hall, G., & Honey, R. C. (1990). Context-specific conditioning in the conditioned-emotional-response procedure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 16(3), 271–278. PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Kinder, A., & Lachnit, H. (2003). Similarity and discrimination in human Pavlovian conditioning. Psychophysiology, 40, 226–234. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Kruschke, J. K. (1992). ALCOVE: An exemplar-based connectionist model of category learning. Psychological Review, 99(1), 22–44. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. León, S. P., Abad, M. J. F., & Rosas, J. M. (2010a). The effect of context change on simple acquisition disappears with increased training. Psicológica, 31, 49–63.Google Scholar
  12. León, S. P., Abad, M. J. F., & Rosas, J. M. (2010b). Giving contexts informative value makes information context-specific. Experimental Psychology, 57(1), 46–53. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. León, S. P., Abad, M. J., & Rosas, J. M. (2011). Context–outcome associations mediate context-switch effects in a human predictive learning task. Learning and Motivation, 42(1), 84–98. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lucke, S., Lachnit, H., Koenig, S., & Uengoer, M. (2013). The informational value of contexts affects context-dependent learning. Learning & Behavior, 41(3), 285–297. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mackintosh, N. J. (1975). A theory of attention: Variations in the associability of stimuli with reinforcement. Psychological Review, 82(4), 276–298. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Marlin, N. A. (1982). Within-compound associations between the context and the conditioned stimulus. Learning and Motivation, 13(4), 526–541. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Nelson, J. B., & Lamoureux, J. A. (2015). Contextual control of conditioning is not affected by extinction in a behavioral task with humans. Learning & Behavior, 43(2), 163–178. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Pearce, J. M. (1994). Similarity and discrimination: A selective review and a connectionist model. Psychological Review, 101(4), 587–607. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 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(6), 532–552. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Preston, G. C., Dickinson, A., & Mackintosh, N. J. (1986). Contextual conditional discriminations. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 38B(2), 217–237. Google Scholar
  21. Rescorla, R. A., & Wagner, A. R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. In A. H. Black & W. F. Prokasy (Eds.), Classical conditioning II: Current research and theory (pp. 64–99). New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
  22. Rosas, J. M., & Callejas-Aguilera, J. E. (2006). Context switch effects on acquisition and extinction in human predictive learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32(3), 461–474. PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Rosas, J. M., & Callejas-Aguilera, J. E. (2007). Acquisition of a conditioned taste aversion becomes context dependent when it is learned after extinction. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60(1), 9–15. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Rosas, J. M., Callejas-Aguilera, J. E., Ramos-Álvarez, M. M., & Abdad, M. J. F. (2006). Revision of retrieval theory of forgetting: What does make information context-specific?. International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 6(2), 147–166. Retrieved from Google Scholar
  25. Rose, M., Schmid, C., Winzen, A., Sommer, T., & Büchel, C. (2005). The functional and temporal characteristics of top-down modulation in visual selection. Cerebral Cortex, 15(9), 1290–1298. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Simon, S. S., Tusch, E. S., Holcomb, P. J., & Daffner, K. R. (2016). Increasing working memory load reduces processing of cross-modal task-irrelevant stimuli even after controlling for task difficulty and executive capacity. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 10(522), 2189. Google Scholar
  27. Theeuwes, J. (2004). Top-down search strategies cannot override attentional capture. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11(1), 65–70. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Yantis, S., & Jonides, J. (1984). Abrupt visual onsets and selective attention: Evidence from visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10(5), 601–621. PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Fachbereich PsychologiePhilipps-Universität MarburgMarburgGermany

Personalised recommendations