Attentional habits acquired by visual statistical learning cause enduring biases toward specific locations. These habits, driven by recent search history, are thought to be independent of both goal-directed and stimulus-driven attentional mechanisms. This theoretical claim is based on three characteristics that these habits apparently exhibit, that is, they are inflexible, implicit, and efficient. We review methodological limitations in previous studies and briefly describe recent results that challenge this new framework. We conclude that it might be premature to assume that attentional habits are based on a special search history process that differs from the two traditionally recognized attentional mechanisms.
AndersonB. A.KimH.KimA. J.LiaoM. -R.MrkonjaL.ClementA.GrégoireL. (2021). The past, present, and future of selection history. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 130, 326–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2021.09.004
2.
BrittonM. K.AndersonB. A. (2020). Specificity and persistence of statistical learning in distractor suppression. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 46(3), 324–334. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000718
3.
ChenM.WangC.SclodnickB.ZhaoG.LiuX. (2019). Executive working memory involved in the learning of contextual cuing effect. Experimental Brain Research, 237(11), 3059–3070. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-019-05643-7
4.
ChunM. M.JiangY. H. (1998). Contextual cueing: Implicit learning and memory of visual context guides spatial attention. Cognitive Psychology, 36, 28–71. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1998.0681
5.
ColagiuriB.LiveseyE. J. (2016). Contextual cuing as a form of nonconscious learning: Theoretical and empirical analysis in large and very large samples. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23(6), 1996–2009. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-016-1063-0
6.
GaoY.TheeuwesJ. (2020). Learning to suppress a distractor is not affected by working memory load. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 27(1), 96–104. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-019-01679-6
7.
GaspelinN.LuckS. J. (2018). “Top-down” does not mean “voluntary.” Journal of Cognition, 1, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.28
8.
GeyerT.RostamiP.SogererL.SchlagbauerB.MüllerH. J. (2020). Task-based memory systems in contextual-cueing of visual search and explicit recognition. Scientific Reports, 10(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-71632-4
9.
Giménez-FernándezT.LuqueD.ShanksD.VadilloM. A. (2020). Probabilistic cuing of visual search: Neither implicit nor inflexible. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 46(10), 1222–1234. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000852
10.
Giménez-FernándezT.LuqueD.ShanksD. R.VadilloM. A. (2022). Is probabilistic cuing of visual search an inflexible attentional habit? A meta-analytic review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 29, 521–529. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-021-02025-5
11.
Giménez-FernándezT.Vicente-ConesaF.LuqueD.VadilloM. A. (2023). The role of working memory in probabilistic cuing of visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 49(7), 1019–1032. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0001193
12.
GolanA.LamyD. (2023). Attentional guidance by target-location probability cueing is largely inflexible, long-lasting, and distinct from inter-trial priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0001220
13.
HongI.KimM. S. (2022). Habit-like attentional bias is unlike goal-driven attentional bias against spatial updating. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 7, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-022-00404-7
14.
JiangY. V.LeungA. W. (2005). Implicit learning of ignored visual context. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 100–106.
JiangY. V.SwallowK. M.RosenbaumG. M. (2013). Guidance of spatial attention by incidental learning and endogenous cuing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39, 285–297. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028022
17.
JiangY. V.WonB.SwallowK. M. (2014). First saccadic eye movement reveals persistent attentional guidance by implicit learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40, 1161–1173. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035961
NewellB. R.ShanksD. R. (2023). Open minded: Searching for truth about the unconscious mind. MIT Press.
20.
PollmannS. (2019). Working memory dependence of spatial contextual cuing for visual search. British Journal of Psychology, 110(2), 372–380. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12311
21.
ShanksD. R.MalejkaS.VadilloM. A. (2021). The challenge of inferring unconscious mental processes. Experimental Psychology, 68(3), 113–129. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000517
22.
ShanksD. R.St JohnM. F. (1994). Characteristics of dissociable human learning systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 17(3), 367–447. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00035032
23.
SmythA. C.ShanksD. R. (2008). Awareness in contextual cuing with extended and concurrent explicit tests. Memory & Cognition, 36(2), 403–415. https://doi.org/10.3758/mc.36.2.403
24.
TheeuwesJ.BogaertsL.van MoorselaarD. (2022). What to expect where and when: How statistical learning drives visual selection. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 26(10), 860–872. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2022.06.001
25.
TravisS. L.MattingleyJ. B.DuxP. E. (2013). On the role of working memory in spatial contextual cuing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39(1), 208–219. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028644
26.
VadilloM. A.KonstantinidisE.ShanksD. R. (2016). Underpowered samples, false negatives, and unconscious learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23, 87–102. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0892-6
27.
VadilloM. A.LinssenD.OrgazC.ParsonsS.ShanksD. R. (2020). Unconscious or underpowered? Probabilistic cuing of visual attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 149, 160–181. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000632
28.
VadilloM. A.MalejkaS.LeeD. Y. H.DienesZ.ShanksD. (2022). Raising awareness about measurement error in research on unconscious mental processes. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 29, 21–43. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-021-01923-y
29.
ValsecchiM.TurattoM. (2021). Distractor filtering is affected by local and global distractor probability, emerges very rapidly but is resistant to extinction. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 83(6), 2458–2472. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-021-02303-3
30.
Vicente-ConesaF.Giménez-FernándezT.LuqueD.VadilloM. (2023). Learning to suppress a distractor may not be unconscious. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 85, 796–813. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-022-02608-x
31.
Vicente-ConesaF.Giménez-FernándezT.ShanksD. R.VadilloM. A. (2022). The role of working memory in contextual cueing of visual attention. Cortex, 154, 287–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2022.05.019
32.
WangB.TheeuwesJ. (2018). Statistical regularities modulate attentional capture. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 44(1), 13–17. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000472
WatsonP.PavriY.LeJ.PearsonD.Le PelleyM. E. (2022). Attentional capture by signals of reward persists following outcome devaluation. Learning & Memory, 29, 181–191. https://doi.org/10.1101/lm.053569.122
WonB. -Y.JiangY. V. (2015). Spatial working memory interferes with explicit, but not probabilistic cuing of spatial attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41(3), 787–806. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000040
