是什么让刺激值得关注?习得性预测效应中的线索-结果相关性和选择相关性。

IF 2.2 2区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition Pub Date : 2024-06-24 DOI:10.1037/xlm0001365
Jessica C Lee, Justine K Greenaway, Hilary J Don, Evan J Livesey
{"title":"是什么让刺激值得关注?习得性预测效应中的线索-结果相关性和选择相关性。","authors":"Jessica C Lee, Justine K Greenaway, Hilary J Don, Evan J Livesey","doi":"10.1037/xlm0001365","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The learned predictiveness effect refers to the tendency for predictive cues to attract greater attention and show faster learning in subsequent tasks. However, in typical designs, the predictiveness of each cue (its objective cue-outcome correlation) is confounded with the degree to which it is informative for making the correct response on each trial (a feature we term choice relevance). In four experiments, we tested the unique contributions of cue-outcome correlation and choice relevance to the learned predictiveness effect by manipulating the outcome choices available on each trial. Experiments 1A and 1B compared two sets of partially predictive cues and found that participants learned more in a transfer phase about the set of cues that were previously choice-relevant. Experiments 2A and 2B used a design in which the cue-outcome correlation was stronger for one set of cues (perfect predictors) than the other set (imperfect predictors). Manipulating the choice relevance of the imperfect predictors in this design did not influence the magnitude of the learning bias toward the perfect predictor. Unlike cue-outcome correlation, choice relevance did not seem to correspond to biases in eye-gaze, suggesting that it operates via a distinct mechanism. Simulations with a modified EXIT model successfully predicted cue-outcome correlation and choice relevance effects by assuming that participants update learning for present outcomes only, but incorrectly predicted additive effects. We conclude that cue-outcome correlation and choice relevance are important factors that can lead to biases in future learning; both were individually sufficient but neither was necessary. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":50194,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What makes a stimulus worthy of attention: Cue-outcome correlation and choice relevance in the learned predictiveness effect.\",\"authors\":\"Jessica C Lee, Justine K Greenaway, Hilary J Don, Evan J Livesey\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/xlm0001365\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The learned predictiveness effect refers to the tendency for predictive cues to attract greater attention and show faster learning in subsequent tasks. However, in typical designs, the predictiveness of each cue (its objective cue-outcome correlation) is confounded with the degree to which it is informative for making the correct response on each trial (a feature we term choice relevance). In four experiments, we tested the unique contributions of cue-outcome correlation and choice relevance to the learned predictiveness effect by manipulating the outcome choices available on each trial. Experiments 1A and 1B compared two sets of partially predictive cues and found that participants learned more in a transfer phase about the set of cues that were previously choice-relevant. Experiments 2A and 2B used a design in which the cue-outcome correlation was stronger for one set of cues (perfect predictors) than the other set (imperfect predictors). Manipulating the choice relevance of the imperfect predictors in this design did not influence the magnitude of the learning bias toward the perfect predictor. Unlike cue-outcome correlation, choice relevance did not seem to correspond to biases in eye-gaze, suggesting that it operates via a distinct mechanism. Simulations with a modified EXIT model successfully predicted cue-outcome correlation and choice relevance effects by assuming that participants update learning for present outcomes only, but incorrectly predicted additive effects. We conclude that cue-outcome correlation and choice relevance are important factors that can lead to biases in future learning; both were individually sufficient but neither was necessary. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50194,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0001365\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0001365","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

学习预测效应指的是预测性线索在后续任务中吸引更多注意力并表现出更快学习的趋势。然而,在典型的设计中,每个线索的预测性(其客观的线索-结果相关性)与它对每次试验做出正确反应的信息程度(我们称之为选择相关性)相混淆。在四个实验中,我们通过操纵每个试验的结果选择,测试了线索-结果相关性和选择相关性对习得性预测效应的独特贡献。实验 1A 和 1B 比较了两组部分预测性线索,发现参与者在转移阶段对之前与选择相关的那组线索学习得更多。实验 2A 和 2B 采用了一种设计,即一组线索(完美预测者)的线索-结果相关性比另一组线索(不完美预测者)更强。在这种设计中,操纵不完全预测因子的选择相关性并不会影响对完全预测因子的学习偏向程度。与线索-结果相关性不同,选择相关性似乎并不与注视偏差相对应,这表明它是通过一种不同的机制发挥作用的。通过假定参与者只对当前结果进行更新学习,使用改进的 EXIT 模型模拟成功地预测了线索-结果相关性和选择相关性效应,但却错误地预测了叠加效应。我们的结论是,提示-结果相关性和选择相关性是可能导致未来学习偏差的重要因素;二者都足以单独存在,但都不是必需的。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, 版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
What makes a stimulus worthy of attention: Cue-outcome correlation and choice relevance in the learned predictiveness effect.

The learned predictiveness effect refers to the tendency for predictive cues to attract greater attention and show faster learning in subsequent tasks. However, in typical designs, the predictiveness of each cue (its objective cue-outcome correlation) is confounded with the degree to which it is informative for making the correct response on each trial (a feature we term choice relevance). In four experiments, we tested the unique contributions of cue-outcome correlation and choice relevance to the learned predictiveness effect by manipulating the outcome choices available on each trial. Experiments 1A and 1B compared two sets of partially predictive cues and found that participants learned more in a transfer phase about the set of cues that were previously choice-relevant. Experiments 2A and 2B used a design in which the cue-outcome correlation was stronger for one set of cues (perfect predictors) than the other set (imperfect predictors). Manipulating the choice relevance of the imperfect predictors in this design did not influence the magnitude of the learning bias toward the perfect predictor. Unlike cue-outcome correlation, choice relevance did not seem to correspond to biases in eye-gaze, suggesting that it operates via a distinct mechanism. Simulations with a modified EXIT model successfully predicted cue-outcome correlation and choice relevance effects by assuming that participants update learning for present outcomes only, but incorrectly predicted additive effects. We conclude that cue-outcome correlation and choice relevance are important factors that can lead to biases in future learning; both were individually sufficient but neither was necessary. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
3.80%
发文量
163
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition publishes studies on perception, control of action, perceptual aspects of language processing, and related cognitive processes.
期刊最新文献
Direct and indirect effects of fluid intelligence on the retrieval practice effect. Delayed testing in directed forgetting dissociates active and passive forms of forgetting. Judgments of learning (JOLs) impact item memory but not source memory: Insights into JOL reactivity using a multinomial model. Mapping the reliability multiverse of contextual cuing. Modulations of response activation contribute to block-wide control: Evidence from proportion congruency effects in the prime-probe task.
×
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