We sought to provide evidence for a combined effect of two attentional mechanisms during associative learning. Participants’ eye movements were recorded as they predicted the outcomes following different pairs of cues. Across the trials of an initial stage, a relevant cue in each pair was consistently followed by one of two outcomes, while an irrelevant cue was equally followed by either of them. Thus, the relevant cue should have been associated with small relative prediction errors, compared to the irrelevant cue. In a later stage, each pair came to be followed by one outcome on a random half of the trials and by the other outcome on the remaining half, and thus there should have been a rise in the overall prediction error. Consistent with an attentional mechanism based on relative prediction error, an attentional advantage for the relevant cue was evident in the first stage. However, in accordance with a mechanism linked to overall prediction error, the attention paid to both types of cues increased at the beginning of the second stage. These results showed up in both dwell times and within-trial patterns of fixations, and they were predicted by a hybrid model of attention.
AndersonB. A. (2016). The attention habit: How reward learning shapes attentional selection. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1369, 24–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.12957
2.
AndersonB. A.YantisS. (2012). Value-driven attentional and oculomotor capture during goal-directed, unconstrained viewing. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 74, 1644–1653. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-012-0348-2
3.
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2015.1009919
4.
BlairM. R.WatsonM. R.WalsheR. C.MajF. (2009). Extremely selective attention: Eye-tracking studies of the dynamic allocation of attention to stimulus features in categorization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 1196–1206. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016272
5.
DayanP.KakadeS.MontagueP. R. (2000). Learning and selective attention. Nature Neuroscience, 3, 1218–1223. https://doi.org/10.1038/81504
6.
DeubelH.SchneiderW. X. (1996). Saccade target selection and object recognition: Evidence for a common attentional mechanism. Vision Research, 36, 1827–1837. https://doi.org/10.1016/0042-6989(95)00294-4
7.
EasdaleL. C.Le PelleyM. E.BeesleyT. (2019). The onset of uncertainty facilitates the learning of new associations by increasing attention to cues. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 72, 193–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2017.1363257
8.
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, 278, 2553–2561. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2011.0836
9.
GeorgeD. N.PearceJ. M. (1999). Acquired distinctiveness is controlled by stimulus relevance not correlation with reward. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 25, 363–373. https://doi.org/10.1037/0097-7403.25.3.363
10.
GottliebJ.CohanpourM.LiY.SingletaryN.ZabehE. (2020). Curiosity, information demand and attention priority. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 35, 83–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2020.07.016
11.
GreenhouseS. W.GeisserS. (1959). On methods in the analysis of profile data. Psychometrika, 24, 95–112. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289823
12.
GriffithsO.JohnsonA. M.MitchellC. J. (2011). Negative transfer in human associative learning. Psychological Science, 22, 1198–1204. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611419305
13.
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018528
14.
HogarthL.DickinsonA.AustinA.BrownC.DukaT. (2008). Attention and expectation in human predictive learning: The role of uncertainty. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 1658–1668. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210701643439
15.
KattnerF. (2015). Transfer of absolute and relative predictiveness in human contingency learning. Learning & Behavior, 43, 32–43. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13420-014-0159-5
16.
KayeH.PearceJ. M. (1984). The strength of the orienting response during Pavlovian conditioning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 10, 90–109. https://doi.org/10.1037/0097-7403.10.1.90
KoenigS.KadelH.UengoerM.SchuböA.LachnitH. (2017). Reward draws the eye, uncertainty holds the eye: Associative learning modulates distractor interference in visual search. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 11, Article 128. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2017.00128
19.
KoenigS.UengoerM.LachnitH. (2017). Attentional bias for uncertain cues of shock in human fear conditioning: Evidence for attentional learning theory. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 11, Article 266. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2017.00266
20.
KoenigS.UengoerM.LachnitH. (2018). Pupil dilation indicates the coding of past prediction errors: Evidence for attentional learning theory. Psychophysiology, 55, Article e13020. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.13020
21.
KruschkeJ. K.KappenmanE. S.HetrickW. P. (2005). Eye gaze and individual differences consistent with learned attention in associative blocking and highlighting. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 830–845. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.31.5.830
22.
LachnitH.ThorwartA.SchultheisH.KoenigS.LotzA.UengoerM. (2013). Indicators of early and late processing reveal the importance of within-trial-time for theories of associative learning. PLOS ONE, 8, Article e66291. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0066291
23.
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, 57(3B), 193–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/02724990344000141
24.
Le PelleyM. E. (2010). The hybrid modeling approach to conditioning. In SchmajukN. A. (Ed.), Computational models of conditioning (pp. 71–107). Cambridge University Press.
25.
Le PelleyM. E.BeesleyT.GriffithsO. (2011). Overt attention and predictiveness in human contingency learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 37, 220–229. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021384
26.
Le PelleyM. E.McLarenI. P. L. (2003). Learned associability and associative change in human causal learning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56(1B), 68–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/02724990244000179
27.
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000064
28.
Le PelleyM. E.TrunbullM. N.ReimersS. J.KnipeR. L. (2010). Learned predictiveness effects following single-cue training in humans. Learning & Behavior, 38, 126–144. https://doi.org/10.3758/LB.38.2.126
29.
Le PelleyM. E.VadilloM.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. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033700
30.
LiveseyE. J.DonH. J.UengoerM.ThorwartA. (2019). Transfer of associability and relational structure in human associative learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cognition, 45, 125–142. https://doi.org/10.1037/xan0000197
31.
LiveseyE. J.ThorwartA.De FinaN. L.HarrisJ. A. (2011). Comparing learned predictiveness effects within and across compound discriminations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 37, 446–465. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023391
32.
LochmannT.WillsA. J. (2003). Predictive history in an allergy prediction task. In SchmalhoferF.YoungR. M.KatzG. (Eds.), Proceedings of EuroCogSci 03 (pp. 217–222). Lawrence Erlbaum.
33.
LuqueD.VadilloM. A.Le PelleyM. E.BeesleyT. (2017). Prediction and uncertainty in associative learning: Examining controlled and automatic components of learned attentional biases. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70, 1485–1503. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2016.1188407
34.
MackintoshN. J. (1975). A theory of attention: Variations in the associability of stimuli with reinforcement. Psychological Review, 82, 276–298. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076778
35.
McColemanC. M.BarnesJ. I.ChenL.MeierK. M.WalsheR. C.BlairM. R. (2014). Learning-induced changes in attentional allocation during categorization: A sizable catalog of attention change as measured by eye movements. PLOS ONE, 9, Article e83302. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0083302
PearceJ. M.HallG. (1980). A model for Pavlovian learning: Variations in the effectiveness of conditioned but not of unconditioned stumuli. Psychological Review, 87, 532–552. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.87.6.532
38.
PearceJ. M.KayeH.HallG. (1981). Predictive accuracy and stimulus associability: Development of a model for Pavlovian learning. In CommonsM. L.HerrnsteinR. J.WagnerA. R. (Eds.), Quantitative analyses of behavior: Acquisition (Vol. 3, pp. 241–255). Ballinger.
39.
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 University Press.
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 theory and research (pp. 64–99). Appleton-Century-Crofts.
StampeD. (1993). Heuristic filtering and reliable calibration for video-based pupil-tracking systems. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 2, 137–142.
44.
SwanJ. A.PearceJ. M. (1988). The orienting response as an index of stimulus associability in rats. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 14, 292–301. https://doi.org/10.1037/0097-7403.14.3.292
45.
TatlerB. W.HayhoeM. M.LandM. F.BallardD. H. (2011). Eye guidance in natural vision: Reinterpreting salience. Journal of Vision, 11, Article 5. https://doi.org/10.1167/11.5.5
ThissenD.SteinbergL.KuangD. (2002). Quick and easy implementation of the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure for controlling the false positive rate in multiple comparisons. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 27, 77–83. https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986027001077
49.
Torrents-RodasD.KoenigS.UengoerM.LachnitH. (2021). A rise in prediction error increases attention to irrelevant cues. Biological Psychology, 159, Article 108007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2020.108007
50.
WalkerA. R.LuqueD.Le PelleyM. E.BeesleyT. (2019). The role of uncertainty in attentional and choice exploration. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 26, 1911–1916. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-019-01653-2
51.
WalkerA. R.NavarroD.NewellB.BeesleyT. (in press). Protection from uncertainty in the exploration/exploitation trade-off. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition.
52.
WangL.YuH.ZhouX. (2013). Interaction between value and perceptual salience in value-driven attentional capture. Journal of Vision, 13, Article 5. https://doi.org/10.1167/13.3.5
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.
