A large body of research has shown that learning about relationships between neutral stimuli and events of significance – rewards or punishments – influences the extent to which people attend to those stimuli in the future. However, different accounts of this influence differ in terms of the critical variable that is proposed to determine learned changes in attention. We describe two experiments using eye-tracking with a rewarded visual search procedure to investigate whether attentional capture is influenced by the predictiveness of stimuli (i.e., the extent to which they provide information about upcoming events) or by their absolute associative value (i.e., the expected incentive value of the outcome that a stimulus predicts). Results demonstrated a clear influence of associative value on the likelihood that stimuli will capture eye-movements, but the evidence for a distinct influence of predictiveness was less compelling. The results of these experiments can be reconciled within a simple account under which attentional prioritization is a monotonic function of the expected, subjective value of the reward that is signalled by a stimulus.
AndersonB. A. (2016). The attention habit: How reward learning shapes attentional selection. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1369, 24–39. doi:10.1111/nyas.12957
AndersonB. A.LaurentP. A.YantisS. (2011b). Value-driven attentional capture. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108, 10367–10371. doi:10.1073/pnas.1104047108
4.
AnselmeP. (2015). Incentive salience attribution under reward uncertainty: A Pavlovian model. Behavioural Processes, 111, 6–18. doi:10.1016/j.beproc.2014.10.016
5.
AwhE.BelopolskyA. V.TheeuwesJ. (2012). Top-down versus bottom-up attentional control: A failed theoretical dichotomy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16, 437–443. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2012.06.010
6.
BeesleyT.NguyenK. P.PearsonD.Le PelleyM. E. (2015). Uncertainty and predictiveness determine attention to cues during human associative learning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68, 2175–2199. doi:10.1080/17470218.2015.1009919
7.
BoakesR. A. (1977). Performance on learning to associate a stimulus with positive reinforcement. In DavisH.HurwirtzH. (Eds.), Operant–Pavlovian interactions (pp. 67–97). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
8.
BrainardD. H. (1997). The psychophysics toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10, 433–436.
9.
CousineauD. (2005). Confidence intervals in within-subject designs: A simpler solution to Loftus and Masson’s method. Tutorial in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 1, 42–45.
10.
DeubelH.SchneiderW. X. (1996). Saccade target selection and object recognition: Evidence for a common attentional mechanism. Vision Research, 36, 1827–1837.
11.
EimasP. D. (1966). Effects of overtraining and age on intradimensional and extradimensional shifts in children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 3, 348–355.
12.
FailingM. F.NissensT.PearsonD.Le PelleyM. E.TheeuwesJ. (2015). Oculomotor capture by stimuli that signal the availability of reward. Journal of Neurophysiology, 114, 2316–2327. doi:10.1152/jn.00441.2015
13.
GibbonJ.FarrellL.LocurtoC. M.DuncanH. J.TerraceH. S. (1980). Partial reinforcement in autoshaping with pigeons. Animal Learning & Behavior, 8, 45–59. doi:10.3758/Bf03209729
14.
HallG.RodriguezG. (2017). Attention to perceive, to learn, and to respond. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/17470218.2017.1339719
15.
HaselgroveM.EsberG. R.PearceJ. M.JonesP. M. (2010). Two kinds of attention in Pavlovian conditioning: Evidence for a hybrid model of learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 36, 456–470.
16.
HaselgroveM.Le PelleyM. E.SinghN. K.TeowH. Q.MorrisR. W.GreenM. J.. . . KillcrossS. (2016). Disrupted attentional learning in high schizotypy: Evidence of aberrant salience. British Journal of Psychology, 107, 601–624. doi:10.1111/bjop.12175
17.
HickeyC.ChelazziL.TheeuwesJ. (2010). Reward changes salience in human vision via the anterior cingulate. Journal of Neuroscience, 30, 11096–11103. doi:10.1523/Jneurosci.1026-10.2010
KattnerF. (2015). Transfer of absolute and relative predictiveness in human contingency learning. Learning & Behavior, 43, 32–43. doi:10.3758/s13420-014-0159-5
20.
KleinerM.BrainardD. H.PelliD. G. (2007). What’s new in Psychtoolbox-3?Perception, 36, ECVP Abstract Supplement.
21.
Le PelleyM. E. (2004). The role of associative history in models of associative learning: A selective review and a hybrid model. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, B, 57, 193–243. doi:10.1080/02724990344000141
22.
Le PelleyM. E. (2010). The hybrid modeling approach to conditioning. In SchmajukN. A. (Ed.), Computational models of conditioning (pp. 71–107). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
23.
Le PelleyM. E.BeesleyT.GriffithsO. (2011). Overt attention and predictiveness in human associative learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 37, 220–229. doi:10.1037/a0021384
24.
Le PelleyM. E.HaselgroveM.EsberG. R. (2012). Modelling attention in associative learning: Two processes or one?Learning & Behavior, 40, 292–304. doi:10.3758/s13420-012-0084-4
25.
Le PelleyM. E.McLarenI. P. L. (2003). Learned associability and associative change in human causal learning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, B, 56, 68–79. doi:10.1080/02724990244000179
26.
Le PelleyM. E.MitchellC. J.BeesleyT.GeorgeD. N.WillsA. J. (2016). Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 142, 1111–1140. doi:10.1037/bul0000064
27.
Le PelleyM. E.PearsonD.GriffithsO.BeesleyT. (2015). When goals conflict with values: Counterproductive attentional and oculomotor capture by reward-related stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144, 158–171. doi:10.1037/xge0000037
28.
Le PelleyM. E.TurnbullM. N.ReimersS. J.KnipeR. L. (2010). Learned predictiveness effects following single-cue training in humans. Learning & Behavior, 38, 126–144. doi:10.3758/LB.38.2.126
29.
Le PelleyM. E.VadilloM. A.LuqueD. (2013). Learned predictiveness influences rapid attentional capture: Evidence from the dot probe task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39, 1888–1900. doi:10.1037/A0033700
30.
LiveseyE. J.HarrisI. M.HarrisJ. A. (2009). Attentional changes during implicit learning: Signal validity protects a target stimulus from the attentional blink. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 408–422.
31.
LudvigE. A.MadanC. R.PisklakJ. M.SpetchM. L. (2014). Reward context determines risky choice in pigeons and humans. Biology Letters, 10, Article 20140451. doi:10.1098/rsbl.2014.0451
32.
LudvigE. A.MadanC. R.SpetchM. L. (2014). Extreme outcomes sway risky decisions from experience. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 27, 146–156. doi:10.1002/bdm.1792
33.
LuqueD.MorísJ.RushbyJ. A.Le PelleyM. E. (2015). Goal-directed EEG activity evoked by discriminative stimuli in reinforcement learning. Psychophysiology, 52, 238–248. doi:10.1111/psyp.12302
34.
MackintoshN. J. (1975). A theory of attention: Variations in the associability of stimuli with reinforcement. Psychological Review, 82, 276–298.
35.
MacLeodC.MathewsA.TataP. (1986). Attentional bias in emotional disorders. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 95, 15–20.
36.
PearceJ. M.HallG. (1980). A model for Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of conditioned but not of unconditioned stimuli. Psychological Review, 87, 532–552.
37.
PearceJ. M.MackintoshN. J. (2010). Two theories of attention: A review and a possible integration. In MitchellC. J.Le PelleyM. E. (Eds.), Attention and associative learning: From brain to behaviour (pp. 11–40). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
38.
PearsonD.DonkinC.TranS. C.MostS. B.Le PelleyM. E. (2015). Cognitive control and counterproductive oculomotor capture by reward-related stimuli. Visual Cognition, 23, 41–66. doi:10.1080/13506285.2014.994252
39.
PearsonD.OsbornR.WhitfordT. J.FailingM.TheeuwesJ.Le PelleyM. E. (2016). Value-modulated oculomotor capture by task-irrelevant stimuli is a consequence of early competition on the saccade map. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 78, 2226–2240. doi:10.3758/s13414-016-1135-2
40.
PelliD.G. (1997). The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: Transforming numbers into movies. Spatial Vision, 10, 437–442.
41.
RatcliffR. (1979). Group reaction time distributions and an analysis of distribution statistics. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 446–461. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.446
42.
RehderB.HoffmanA. B. (2005). Eyetracking and selective attention in category learning. Cognitive Psychology, 51, 1–41.
43.
RescorlaR. A.WagnerA. R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and non-reinforcement. In BlackA. H.ProkasyW. F. (Eds.), Classical conditioning II: Current research and theory (pp. 64–99). New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
44.
SalvucciD. D.GoldbergJ. H. (2000). Identifying fixations and saccades in eye-tracking protocols. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Eye Tracking Research & Applications - ETRA ‘00 (pp. 71–78). Florida: Palm Beach Gardens.
45.
SavageL. J. (1954). The foundations of statistics. New York, NY: John Wiley.
46.
SwanJ. A.PearceJ. M. (1988). The orienting response as an index of stimulus associability in rats. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 4, 292–301.
47.
TheeuwesJ. (1992). Perceptual selectivity for color and form. Perception & Psychophysics, 51, 599–606. doi:10.3758/Bf03211656
48.
WilsonP. N.BoumphreyP.PearceJ. M. (1992). Restoration of the orienting response to a light by a change in its predictive accuracy. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, B, 44, 17–36.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
