In human predictive learning, blocking, A+ AB+, and a simple discrimination, UX+ VX–, result in a stronger response to the blocked, B, than the uninformative cue, X (where letters represent cues and + and – represent different outcomes). To assess whether these different treatments result in more attention being paid to blocked than uninformative cues, Stage 1 in each of three experiments generated two blocked cues, B and E, and two uninformative cues, X and Y. In Stage 2, participants received two simple discriminations: either BX+ EX– and BY+ EY–, or BX+ BY– and EX+ EY–. If more attention is paid to blocked than uninformative cues, then the first pair of discriminations will be solved more readily than the second pair. In contrast to this prediction, both discriminations were acquired at the same rate. These results are explained by the theory of Mackintosh, by virtue of the assumption that learning is governed by an individual rather than a common error term.
CummingG. (2012). Understanding the new statistics: Effect sizes, confidence intervals, and meta-analysis. New York, NY: Routledge.
2.
CummingG. (2013). Exploratory Software for Confidence Intervals – ESCI. Available from www.thenewstatistics.com
3.
DienesZ. (2008). Understanding psychology as a science: An introduction to scientific and statistical inference. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
4.
DienesZ. (2014). Using Bayes to get the most out of non-significant results. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 781. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00781
5.
DopsonJ. C.EsberG. R.PearceJ. M. (2010). Differences in the associability of relevant and irrelevant stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 36, 258–267.
6.
EsberG. R.HaselgroveM. (2011). Reconciling the influence of predictiveness and uncertainty on stimulus salience: A model of attention in associative learning. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 278, 2553–2561.
7.
GluckM. A.BowerG. H. (1988). Evaluating an adaptive network model of human learning. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 166–195.
8.
GreenhouseS. W.GeisserS. (1959). On methods in the analysis of profile data. Psychometrika, 24, 95–112.
9.
HallG. (1991). Perceptual and associative learning. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
10.
JonesP. M.PearceJ. M. (2015). The fate of redundant cues: Further analysis of the redundancy effect. Learning and Behavior, 43, 72–82.
11.
KaminL. J. (1969). Selective association and conditioning. In MackintoshN. J.HonigW. K. (Eds.), Fundamental issues in associative learning (pp. 42–64). Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada: Dalhousie University Press.
12.
KattnerF. (2015). Transfer of absolute and relative predictiveness in human contingency learning. Learning & Behavior, 43, 32–43.
13.
KruschkeJ. K. (1996). Dimensional relevance shifts in category learning. Connection Science, 8, 225–247.
14.
KruschkeJ. K.BlairN. J. (2000). Blocking and backward blocking involve learned inattention. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7, 636–645.
15.
Le PelleyM. E. (2004). The role of associative history in models of associative learning: A selective review and a hybrid model. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, Section B: Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 57, 193–243.
16.
Le PelleyM. E.BeesleyT.GriffithsO. (2014). Relative salience versus relative validity: Cue salience influences blocking in human associative learning. Journal of Experi-mental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cognition, 40, 116–132.
17.
Le PelleyM. E.BeesleyT.SuretM. B. (2007). Blocking of human causal learning involves learned changes in stimulus processing. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 1468–1476.
18.
Le PelleyM. E.McLarenI. P. L. (2003). Learned associability and associative change in human causal learning. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, Section B: Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 56, 68–79.
19.
LochmannT.WillsA. J. (2003). Predictive history in an allergy prediction task. In SchmalhoferF.YoungR. M.KatzG. (Eds.), Proceedings of EuroCogSci 03: The European Cognitive Science Conference (pp. 217–222). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
20.
MackintoshN. J. (1973). Stimulus selection: Learning to ignore stimuli that predict no change in reinforcement. In HindeR. A.Stevenson-HindeJ. (Eds.), Constraints on learning (pp. 75–100). London, England: Academic Press.
21.
MackintoshN. J. (1975). A theory of attention: Variations in the associability of stimuli with reinforcement. Psychological Review, 82, 276–298.
22.
PearceJ. M. (1994). Similarity and discrimination: A selective review and a connectionist model. Psychological Review, 101, 587–607.
23.
PearceJ. M.DopsonJ. C.HaselgroveM.EsberG. R. (2012). The fate of redundant cues during blocking and a simple discrimination. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 38, 167–179.
24.
PearceJ. M.EsberG. R.GeorgeD. N.HaselgroveM. (2008). The nature of discrimination learning in pigeons. Learning and Behavior, 36, 188–199.
25.
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. 11–39). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
26.
RescorlaR. A.WagnerA. R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. In BlackA. H.ProkasyW. F. (Eds.), Classical conditioning II: Current research and theory (pp. 64–99). New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
27.
RouderJ. N.SpeckmanP. L.SunD.MoreyR. D.IversonG. (2009). Bayesian t tests for accepting and rejecting the null hypothesis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 225–237.
28.
ShanksD. R. (1985). Forward and backward blocking in human contingency judgement. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, Section B: Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 37, 1–21.
29.
UengoerM.LachnitH. (2012). Modulation of attention in discrimination learning: The roles of stimulus relevance and stimulus–outcome correlation. Learning & Behavior, 40, 117–127.
30.
UengoerM.LotzA.PearceJ. M. (2013). The fate of redundant cues in human predictive learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 39, 323–333.
31.
VogelE. H.WagnerA. R. (2017). A theoretical note in interpretation of the ‘redundancy effect’ in associative learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cognition, 43, 119–125.
32.
WassermanE. A. (1990). Attribution of causality to common and distinctive elements of compound stimuli. Psychological Science, 1, 298–302.
