"Uncertainty and predictiveness modulate attention in human predictive learning": Correction to Chao, McGregor, and Sanderson (2020).

IF 3.7 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL Journal of Experimental Psychology: General Pub Date : 2023-11-01 Epub Date: 2021-01-14 DOI:10.1037/xge0001032
{"title":"\"Uncertainty and predictiveness modulate attention in human predictive learning\": Correction to Chao, McGregor, and Sanderson (2020).","authors":"","doi":"10.1037/xge0001032","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Reports an error in \"Uncertainty and predictiveness modulate attention in human predictive learning\" by Chang-Mao Chao, Anthony McGregor and David J. Sanderson (Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, Advanced Online Publication, Nov 30, 2020, np). In the article, formatting for UK Research Councils funding was omitted. The author note and copyright line now reflect the standard acknowledgment of and formatting for the funding received for this article. All versions of this article have been corrected. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2020-88205-001.) Attention determines which cues receive processing and are learned about. Learning, however, leads to attentional biases. In the study of animal learning, in some circumstances, cues that have been previously predictive of their consequences are subsequently learned about more than are nonpredictive cues, suggesting that they receive more attention. In other circumstances, cues that have previously led to uncertain consequences are learned about more than are predictive cues. In human learning, there is a clear role for predictiveness, but a role for uncertainty has been less clear. Here, in a human learning task, we show that cues that led to uncertain outcomes were subsequently learned about more than were cues that were previously predictive of their outcomes. This effect occurred when there were few uncertain cues. When the number of uncertain cues was increased, attention switched to predictive cues. This pattern of results was found for cues (1) that were uncertain because they led to 2 different outcomes equally often in a nonpredictable manner and (2) that were used in a nonlinear discrimination and were not predictive individually but were predictive in combination with other cues. This suggests that both the opposing predictiveness and uncertainty effects were determined by the relationship between individual cues and outcomes rather than the predictive strength of combined cues. These results demonstrate that learning affects attention; however, the precise nature of the effect on attention depends on the level of task complexity, which reflects a potential switch between exploration and exploitation of cues. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":15698,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Psychology: General","volume":" ","pages":"3242"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10585935/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Experimental Psychology: General","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001032","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/1/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Reports an error in "Uncertainty and predictiveness modulate attention in human predictive learning" by Chang-Mao Chao, Anthony McGregor and David J. Sanderson (Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, Advanced Online Publication, Nov 30, 2020, np). In the article, formatting for UK Research Councils funding was omitted. The author note and copyright line now reflect the standard acknowledgment of and formatting for the funding received for this article. All versions of this article have been corrected. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2020-88205-001.) Attention determines which cues receive processing and are learned about. Learning, however, leads to attentional biases. In the study of animal learning, in some circumstances, cues that have been previously predictive of their consequences are subsequently learned about more than are nonpredictive cues, suggesting that they receive more attention. In other circumstances, cues that have previously led to uncertain consequences are learned about more than are predictive cues. In human learning, there is a clear role for predictiveness, but a role for uncertainty has been less clear. Here, in a human learning task, we show that cues that led to uncertain outcomes were subsequently learned about more than were cues that were previously predictive of their outcomes. This effect occurred when there were few uncertain cues. When the number of uncertain cues was increased, attention switched to predictive cues. This pattern of results was found for cues (1) that were uncertain because they led to 2 different outcomes equally often in a nonpredictable manner and (2) that were used in a nonlinear discrimination and were not predictive individually but were predictive in combination with other cues. This suggests that both the opposing predictiveness and uncertainty effects were determined by the relationship between individual cues and outcomes rather than the predictive strength of combined cues. These results demonstrate that learning affects attention; however, the precise nature of the effect on attention depends on the level of task complexity, which reflects a potential switch between exploration and exploitation of cues. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
“不确定性和预测性调节人类预测学习中的注意力”:对Chao、McGregor和Sanderson(2020)的更正。
Chang Mao Chao、Anthony McGregor和David J.Sanderson在“人类预测学习中的不确定性和预测性调节注意力”中报告了一个错误(《实验心理学杂志》:综述,高级在线出版物,2020年11月30日,np)。在这篇文章中,省略了英国研究委员会资助的格式。作者注释和版权行现在反映了对本文资金的标准认可和格式。这篇文章的所有版本都已更正。(以下原始文章摘要出现在记录2020-88205-001中。)注意力决定了哪些线索受到处理并被了解。然而,学习会导致注意力偏差。在动物学习的研究中,在某些情况下,先前预测其后果的线索随后比非预测线索了解得更多,这表明它们受到了更多的关注。在其他情况下,先前导致不确定后果的线索比预测线索了解得更多。在人类学习中,预测性有着明确的作用,但不确定性的作用却不那么明确。在这里,在人类学习任务中,我们发现,导致不确定结果的线索随后比之前预测其结果的线索了解得更多。这种影响发生在几乎没有不确定线索的情况下。当不确定线索的数量增加时,注意力转向预测线索。这种结果模式是针对以下线索发现的:(1)不确定的线索,因为它们以不可预测的方式同样频繁地导致2种不同的结果;(2)用于非线性判别,不能单独预测,但可以与其他线索组合预测。这表明,相反的预测性和不确定性效应都是由个体线索和结果之间的关系决定的,而不是由组合线索的预测强度决定的。这些结果表明,学习影响注意力;然而,对注意力影响的确切性质取决于任务复杂性的水平,这反映了线索的探索和利用之间的潜在转换。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c)2023 APA,保留所有权利)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
4.90%
发文量
300
期刊介绍: The Journal of Experimental Psychology: General publishes articles describing empirical work that bridges the traditional interests of two or more communities of psychology. The work may touch on issues dealt with in JEP: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, JEP: Human Perception and Performance, JEP: Animal Behavior Processes, or JEP: Applied, but may also concern issues in other subdisciplines of psychology, including social processes, developmental processes, psychopathology, neuroscience, or computational modeling. Articles in JEP: General may be longer than the usual journal publication if necessary, but shorter articles that bridge subdisciplines will also be considered.
期刊最新文献
Bypassing versus correcting misinformation: Efficacy and fundamental processes. Risky hybrid foraging: The impact of risk, reward value, and prevalence on foraging behavior in hybrid visual search. Shortcuts to insincerity: Texting abbreviations seem insincere and not worth answering. Confidence regulates feedback processing during human probabilistic learning. Does affective processing require awareness? On the use of the Perceptual Awareness Scale in response priming research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1