Context modulation of learned attention deployment

  • Metin Uengoer
  • John M. Pearce
  • Harald Lachnit
  • Stephan Koenig
Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Attention Context Discrimination learning Humans 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Author note

The research reported in this article was supported by the German Research Foundation (DFG) through Grant UE 155/1-2 and Grant SFB/TRR 135, TP B04, to M.U. and H.L., respectively.

References

  1. Bakeman, R. (2005). Recommended effect size statistics for repeated measures designs. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 379–384. doi: 10.3758/BF03192707 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.Google Scholar
  3. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Greenhouse, S. W., & Geisser, S. (1959). On methods in the analysis of profile data. Psychometrika, 24, 95–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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.Google Scholar
  9. 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 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kruschke, J. K., & Blair, N. J. (2000). Blocking and backward blocking involve learned inattention. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7, 636–645. doi: 10.3758/BF03213001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 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 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.Google Scholar
  21. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 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.Google Scholar
  23. Sutherland, N. S., & Mackintosh, N. J. (1971). Mechanisms of animal discrimination learning. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  24. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Metin Uengoer
    • 1
  • John M. Pearce
    • 2
  • Harald Lachnit
    • 1
  • Stephan Koenig
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of PsychologyPhilipps-Universität MarburgMarburgGermany
  2. 2.School of PsychologyCardiff UniversityCardiffUK

Personalised recommendations