Learners exhibit many apparently irrational behaviors in their use of cues, sometimes learning to ignore relevant cues or to attend to irrelevant ones. A learning phenomenon called highlighting seems especially to demand explanation in terms of learned attention. Highlighting complements the classic phenomenon of conditioned blocking, which has been shown to involve learned inattention. Highlighting and blocking, along with a wide spectrum of other perplexing learning phenomena, can be accounted for by recent connectionist models in which both attentional shifting and associative learning are driven by the rational goal of rapid error reduction.
KaminL.J. (1968). ‘Attention-like’ processes in classical conditioning. InJonesM.R.(Ed.), Miami symposium on the prediction of behavior: Aversive stimulation(pp.9–33). Coral Gables, FL: University of Miami Press.
KruschkeJ.K. (2001a). The inverse base rate effect is not explained by eliminative inference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 1385–1400.
7.
KruschkeJ.K. (2001b). Toward a unified model of attention in associative learning. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 45, 812–863.
KruschkeJ.K.JohansenM.K. (1999). A model of probabilistic category learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 1083–1119.
10.
LubowR.E. (1989). Latent inhibition and conditioned attention theory. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
11.
MackintoshN.J. (1975). A theory of attention: Variations in the associability of stimuli with reinforcement. Psychological Review, 82, 276–298.
12.
MedinD.L.EdelsonS.M. (1988). Problem structure and the use of base-rate information from experience. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 117, 68–85.
13.
NosofskyR.M. (1986). Attention, similarity and the identification-categorization relationship. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115, 39–57.
14.
OadesR.D.SartoryG. (1997). The problems of inattention: Methods and interpretations. Behavioural Brain Research, 88, 3–10.
15.
OwenA.M.RobertsA.C.HodgesJ.R.SummersB.A.PolkeyC.E.RobbinsT.W. (1993). Contrasting mechanisms of impaired attentional set-shifting in patients with frontal lobe damage or Parkinson's disease. Brain, 116, 1159–1175.
16.
RescorlaR.A.WagnerA.R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and non-reinforcement. InBlackA.H.ProkasyW.F.(Eds.), Classical conditioning: II. Current research and theory(pp.64–99). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
17.
RogersR.D.AndrewsT.C.GrasbyP.M.BrooksD.J.RobbinsT.W. (2000). Contrasting cortical and subcortical activations produced by attentional-set shifting and reversal learning in humans. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12, 142–162.
18.
TrabassoT.BowerG.H. (1968). Attention in learning: Theory and research.New York: Wiley.
