The DOI matches its Crossref record; 309 of the 309 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 170 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review.
Open accessAbstract
. Rather, it suggests a new kind of “derived” attention.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This integrative review argues that in humans, attention to cues is shaped by associative learning: predictive cues and cues that signal high-value outcomes receive more attention, through both controlled and automatic processes. It finds strong support for the predictiveness principle, weak support for the uncertainty principle, and proposes a simple model in which attention is determined by associative strength.
Key findings
- There is strong evidence for the predictiveness principle: predictive cues are learned about faster and receive more overt attention, as shown by learned predictiveness, intradimensional–extradimensional shift, eye-tracking, attentional blink, and spatial cueing studies. In Denton and Kruschke (2006), test accuracy to the same low-salience green cue was 38% when it had been trained with a high-salience red cue versus 82% when trained with a low-salience red cue (chance = 33%).
- Evidence for the uncertainty principle in humans is much weaker: neuroscientific, model-fitting, and qualitative findings are mixed, not always robust, and sometimes fail to replicate. Beesley et al. (2015) found greater overt attention to all cues under uncertain conditions (predictive cues predicted outcome with 67% accuracy) than certain conditions (100% accuracy), but the review concludes overall support for the uncertainty principle is not strong.
- Learned value also influences attention: cues predicting high-value outcomes capture attention automatically, even when task-irrelevant and counterproductive. Le Pelley et al. (2015) found high-value distractors produced significantly more omission trials than low-value distractors; these effects persisted over training and were resistant to explicit instruction.
- The authors propose a simple model in which attention to a cue is determined by its absolute associative strength, αA = |VA|, which accounts for most learned predictiveness and learned value data; the inverse base-rate effect is identified as an exception. Clinically, attentional bias predicts relapse, and Eberl et al. (2013) reported that cognitive retraining reduced one-year relapse rates by up to 10%.
Methods
- Integrative/narrative review of human associative learning and attention, covering predictiveness, uncertainty, learned value, top-down/bottom-up attention, and a simple theoretical model.
- Search 1: ISI Web of Science on 10/10/2015, in psychology, neuroscience, psychiatry, behavioral sciences, and multidisciplinary sciences, for articles citing Mackintosh (1975) or Pearce and Hall (1980) and containing keywords attention*, predict*, associab*, relevan*, irrelevan*, certain*, uncertain*; 828 hits, 28 additional articles found, yielding 143 relevant articles. Search 2: ISI Web of Science on 19/10/2015, for articles citing Anderson et al. (2011b), Della Libera and Chelazzi (2009), or Raymond and O’Brien (2009); 195 hits, 4 additional articles found, yielding 86 relevant articles.
- Main analysis is a narrative synthesis of behavioral, eye-tracking, EEG/fMRI, model-fitting, and clinical studies, plus simulations of Mackintosh-style attention equations.
Limitations
- Stated: evidence for the uncertainty principle in humans is not strong; model-fitting studies are mixed and do not test predictiveness-based alternatives; the inverse base-rate effect is an exception to the simple associative-strength model; future work is needed to determine when attentional exploration versus exploitation occurs.
- Stated: many uncertainty-principle findings are not robust to replication, some unpublished replications are mixed, and Hogarth et al.’s findings conflict with those of Austin and Duka.
- Evident: as a narrative review, it does not provide a systematic meta-analysis or effect-size synthesis; the search was limited to Web of Science and specific citing/keyword criteria, so relevant work outside those bounds may be missed.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
108 Own interpretation · 104 Not checked yet · 23 No basis given · 2 Own method
In the paper
“Thus the accuracy of the response to exactly the same green stimulus depended on the salience of the stimulus that accompanied it during training.”
§ Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review > The Scope of the Current Survey
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Denton and Kruschke (2006)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The ID-ED shift effect shows that learning can influence the attention that is paid to a stimulus dimension (e.g.colour, shape)”
§ Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review > Simple learned irrelevance.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Overall, therefore, the current evidence suggests people tend to pay attention to cues that have reliably predicted valued outcomes in the past.”
§ Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review > Abstract
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Here, we find that people pay more attention to predictors of valuable outcomes than predictors of nonvaluable outcomes.”
§ Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The ID-ED shift effect is consistent with the idea of greater attention to predictive cues than nonpredictive cues.”
§ Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review > Simple learned irrelevance.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Perhaps unsurprisingly, very intense cues (those that can be expected to receive most attention) tend to be learned about more rapidly than less intense cues.”
§ Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review > The Scope of the Current Survey
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As such, the extent to which the overall ID-ED shift effect reflects learned relevance or irrelevance remains unclear, and it may not be possible to resolve this issue for certain.”
§ Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review > Simple learned irrelevance.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Despite this, a final test revealed that participants had learned more about the previously predictive cues than the previously nonpredictive cues; e.g., they learned the relationship between apples and nausea more strongly than the relationship between bananas and nausea.”
§ Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review > Simple learned irrelevance.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Le Pelley and McLaren (2003)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The ID-ED shift procedure overcomes the problems with the simple learned irrelevance procedure in the previous section.”
§ Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review > Simple learned irrelevance.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“This learned predictiveness effect demonstrated by changing outcomes between two phases of training has been replicated many times.2”
§ Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review > Simple learned irrelevance.
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 58
- Probably not a substantial claim. 28
- The quote only partly states this claim. 2
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Here, previously predictive cues are learned about more quickly than previously non-predictive cues, and they also command more attention as measured by tracking eye-gaze.”
§ Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review > Behavioural Evidence for the Predictiveness Principle
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“it approaches this limit more rapidly when outcome magnitude is large”
§ Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review > References
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A increases to the upper limit of 1 in both cases.”
§ Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review > References
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“asymptotic attention is greater when outcome magnitude is larger than when it is small.”
§ Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review > References
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- The authors state this as an assumption: In the simpler model, attention to a stimulus is determined by its absolute associative strength, which is in turn limited by the outcome magnitude λ.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We find that, in humans, there is a great deal of evidence in favour of the former, predictiveness principle and relatively little evidence to support the latter, uncertainty principle.”
§ Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Another major finding from this survey is that there is evidence for both top-down and bottom-up attentional processes with respect to both predictiveness and learned value.”
§ Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Hence, people deliberately pay attention to cues that predict high-value outcomes and, perhaps more interestingly, attention is also captured by these cues in a way that is outside of strategic control.”
§ Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Consistent with this idea, the predictiveness principle refers to the idea that cues become more psychologically salient as a result of their predictiveness with respect to important outcomes; more attention will be allocated to predictive cues than to nonpredictive cues.”
§ Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review > Predictiveness and Attention
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The resulting 828 hits were then reviewed for content and for references to further literature”
- Also stated in: § The Scope of the Current Survey · plain
“yielding a total of 143 articles relevant to the current discussion”
§ Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review > The Scope of the Current Survey
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
- Also stated in: § The Scope of the Current Survey · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The implication is that the presence of the high-salience red pattern (but not the low-salience red pattern) overshadowed learning about the green pattern.”
§ Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review > The Scope of the Current Survey
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“These principles are exemplified by theories proposed by Mackintosh (1975) and Pearce and Hall (1980) respectively.”
§ Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review > The Scope of the Current Survey
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Mackintosh (1975)
- Not checked yetcites Pearce & Hall (1980)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Here, past associative learning appears to change the way in which animals attend to their environment, showing that attention can be conditioned just as overt responses (lever-pressing, salivation etc) can be conditioned.”
§ Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review > Abstract
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Two (contrasting) views of the relationship between predictiveness and attention have been dominant in the associative learning literature.”
§ Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review > The Scope of the Current Survey
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“It is well-known that stimulus selection can be driven by the perceptual properties of a stimulusa stimulus is more likely to capture attention if it has an abrupt onset (Yantis & Jonides, 1984), or bright colour (Theeuwes, 1992).”
§ Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review > The Scope of the Current Survey
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Yantis & Jonides, 1984
- Not checked yetcites Theeuwes, 1992
boostedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, directly analogous approaches have since been used to study the interaction between attention and learning in humans.”
§ Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review > Background and Scope of the Current Article
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Competition may be an important determinant, not only of the extent to which learning takes place, but also the way in which learning in turn alters psychological salience, by modulating attention.”
§ Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review > The Scope of the Current Survey
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“And like the ID-ED shift effect, the learned predictiveness effect is not confounded with stimulus familiarity (since all cues are presented the same number of times) or differences in the objective cue-outcome relationships (since all cues are equally predictive of the outcomes with which they are paired in Phase 2).”
§ Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review > Simple learned irrelevance.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is clear, then, that stimulus intensity and physical salience can influence learning.”
§ Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review > The Scope of the Current Survey
boostedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“This later gave way to a less extreme view (see Sutherland & Mackintosh, 1971) on which the allocation of attentional resources occurs on a continuum, such that differences in attention give rise to graded differences in the rate of learning about stimuli, otherwise referred to as the associability or conditionability of those stimuli.”
§ Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review > Background and Scope of the Current Article
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Sutherland & Mackintosh, 1971
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Hence, the speed with which a cueoutcome association is learned can be taken as a measure of the attention paid to the cue.”
§ Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review > Background and Scope of the Current Article
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lashley (1929)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Such findings have since been replicated and extended in studies of human associative learning.”
§ Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“High intensity cues produce greater conditioned responding and prevent learning about other cues.”
§ Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review > The Scope of the Current Survey
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This finding shows that participants in the Change group were aware of the predictive status of cues in Phase 1 and were able to use that knowledge to strategically allocate their attention to previously nonpredictive cues in Phase 2.”
§ Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review > Controlled and Automatic Attentional Processes
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This attentional capture occurred even though (1) it was not required by the task, (2) it was not adaptive with regard to that task, and (3) the short SOA meant that there was little time for participants to consciously process and respond to the stimuli on each test trial.”
§ Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review > Spatial cueing.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, there was no obvious advantage to the participant in biasing attention towards one stimulus and away from another; the implication is that the bias observed was automatic and not under the participant's control.”
§ Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review > Attentional blink.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This evidence, together with the earlier learned predictiveness findings, firmly establishes that predictive cues are higher than non-predictive cues in both associability and overt attention.”
§ Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review > Beyond Associability: Evidence from Eye Gaze
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“It should be noted, however, that subsequent studies using the same approach have found that, although instructions do have a profound influence on the effect, there can also be a residual predictiveness effect (a bias towards previously predictive cues when averaged across both groups) that survives reversal instructions”
§ Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review > Controlled and Automatic Attentional Processes
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Don & Livesey, 2015
- Not checked yetcites Shone et al., 2015
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Furthermore, Mitchell et al. (2012) saw no evidence for any automatic bias towards previously predictive cues; there was no evidence for any overall bias across both groups towards previously predictive cues.”
§ Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review > Controlled and Automatic Attentional Processes
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Mitchell et al., 2012
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It suggests that the predictive stimulus captured participants' spatial attention and hence sped responses to events occurring in that location; in this case, the onset of the probe.”
§ Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review > Spatial cueing.
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“During Phase 2, participants in the Change group learned more about cues that had been nonpredictive in Phase 1, and paid greater overt attention to these cues (measured using eyetracking), compared to those that had been predictive in Phase 1.”
§ Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review > Controlled and Automatic Attentional Processes
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Mitchell et al., 2012
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“This effect is widely assumed to reflect attentional limitations during encoding that restrict perceptual awareness of targets”
§ Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review > Attentional blink.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Raymond, Shapiro & Arnell, 1992
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In summary, while studies of encoding of uPEs in the brain are revealing in terms of functional brain anatomy, they do not convincingly address the uncertainty principle.”
§ Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review > Evidence for the Uncertainty Principle in Humans
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“It is also possible that the greater variance explained by the more flexible model may reflect overfitting fitting noise in addition to systematic patterns”
§ Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review > Uncertainty and cue processing I: Model-fitting studies.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Pitt & Myung, 2002
- Not checked yetcites Wills & Pothos, 2012
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“In other words, these studies fail to consider the relative adequacy (Wills & Pothos, 2012) of predictiveness-and uncertainty-based models.Hence the specific support offered by these model-fitting studies to the uncertainty principle remains rather weak.”
§ Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review > Uncertainty and cue processing I: Model-fitting studies.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Wills & Pothos, 2012
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Perhaps more importantly, the model-fitting studies cited above consider only two options: a fixed-rate model versus a variable-rate model incorporating the uncertainty principle.They do not consider alternative versions of a variable-rate model; in particular, a version incorporating the predictiveness principleperhaps such a model would provide the best fit of all.”
§ Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review > Uncertainty and cue processing I: Model-fitting studies.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In contrast, the critical effect of the surprising trials on later learning is typically weak, and not always replicated.”
§ Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review > Uncertainty and cue processing II: Qualitative studies.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Unpublished attempts to replicate the negative transfer effect of Griffiths et al. (2011), by the original researchers, have been mixed.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In rats, there is evidence in support of both the uncertainty principle and the predictiveness principle”
§ Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review > The Pearce-Hall Model
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Le Pelley, 2004
- Not checked yetcites Pearce & Mackintosh, 2010
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, findings are mixed and not all possible models (e.g., predictiveness-based models) have been tested.”
§ Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review > Evidence for the Uncertainty Principle in Humans
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While these latter imaging data show a link between cues and uPEs, they still fall short of confirming the uncertainty principle.”
§ Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review > Evidence for the Uncertainty Principle in Humans
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Several fMRI studies with humans have found brain regions whose activity correlates across trials with uPE, with greater activity generated by presentation of surprising outcomes than predicted outcomes.”
§ Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review > Evidence for the Uncertainty Principle in Humans
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Boll, Gamer, Gluth, Finsterbusch & Buchel, 2013
- Not checked yetcites Prevost, McCabe, Jessup, Bossaerts & O'Doherty, 2011
- Not checked yetcites Ploghaus et al., 2000
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The fixed-rate model is a special case of a variable-rate model in which the parameter controlling changes in rate is set to zero, so the variable-rate model will always fit at least as well as the fixed-rate model.”
§ Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review > Uncertainty and cue processing I: Model-fitting studies.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“So in the end, whether a fixed-or variable-rate model is preferred comes down to how heavily the greater flexibility of the variable model is penalized; there is debate over the most appropriate way to implement this penalty”
§ Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review > Uncertainty and cue processing I: Model-fitting studies.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Kenny, 2015
- Not checked yetcites Pitt & Myung, 2002
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Some studies have found that models in which attention to cues is variable, and determined by uncertainty, fit empirical learning data better than models in which attention is fixed.”
§ Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review > Evidence for the Uncertainty Principle in Humans
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Such studies show that uPE is encoded in the brain, which is a prerequisite of the uncertainty principle.”
§ Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review > Evidence for the Uncertainty Principle in Humans
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The reason for the difference in highlighted brain regions across these studies is not clear, though it most likely relates to the wide variety of different procedures.”
§ Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review > Evidence for the Uncertainty Principle in Humans
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The implication is that overt attention was greater to less predictive cues than to more predictive cues”
§ Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review > Uncertainty and cue processing II: Qualitative studies.
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This finding of greater attention to cues under conditions of greater uncertainty accords with the uncertainty principle embodied by the Pearce-Hall model, and with the suggestion that uncertainty drives attentional exploration of cues for prediction-relevant information.”
§ Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review > The uncertainty principle: conclusions.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As far as we are aware, it is true that all studies supporting the uncertainty principle have used procedures in which the outcome cannot be predicted perfectly on each trial.”
§ Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review > The uncertainty principle: conclusions.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the relative lack of evidence for the Pearce-Hall process may simply reflect a trend in the types of procedures that have been used to study attentional learning in humans.”
§ Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review > The uncertainty principle: conclusions.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: In studies that do not involve substantial monetary rewards, participants' primary motivation is to complete the experiment as quickly as possible and with minimum effort.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Before moving on, we note briefly that there are certain phenomena demonstrating a relationship between learning and attention that are anticipated by both the predictiveness principle and the uncertainty principle.”
§ Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review > Summary: Predictiveness versus uncertainty
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It also follows from the uncertainty principle because, on early extinction trials, the occurrence of 'no illness' after eating steak at restaurant R is surprising and hence (according to the Pearce-Hall model) will result in an increase in attention to all presented stimuli, which includes the restaurant.”
§ Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review > Summary: Predictiveness versus uncertainty
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This finding suggests that learning about the rewards associated with stimuli modulated attention to those stimuli; greater attention allocated to the high-reward target colour than the low-reward colour.”
§ Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review > Reward Influences Attention to Task-Relevant Stimuli
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Attentional capture by the highvalue colour (say, red) during the test phase may not be driven by its learned value, but because this colour defined the target during the preceding training phase.”
§ Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review > Training phasetest phase procedures.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Hybrid models incorporating both of these principles have been put forward in the context of animal learning theory, though it remains for future empirical work to establish more convincingly whether both of these mechanisms operate in humans.”
§ Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review > Summary: Predictiveness versus uncertainty
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“That is, while attention tends to increase towards cues that reliably signal their outcomes, even greater attention will be paid to cues that reliably signal the outcomes that have the highest value.”
§ Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review > Learned Value
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“This suggestion is consistent with the original characterizations of uncertainty-driven and predictiveness-driven processes in the models of Pearce & Hall (1980) and Mackintosh (1975) respectively, and offers one way in which the predictiveness and uncertainty principles-which at first glance seem to be mutually contradictory-might be reconciled (see Le Pelley, 2004, 2010, for a hybrid model along”
§ Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review > The uncertainty principle: conclusions.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Pearce & Hall (1980)
- Not checked yetcites Mackintosh (1975)
- Not checked yetcites Le Pelley, 2004, 2010
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Consequently, at least early in training this model correctly anticipates greater attention to stimuli that predict a high-value outcome (e.g., a large reward) than those that predict a low-value outcome (Figure 3a).However, at asymptote the model anticipates that attention will depend on learned predictiveness (attention will be greater to predictive than nonpredictive cues) but not learned value”
§ Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review > Applying Mackintosh (1975) to Learned Value
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Mackintosh, 1975
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This last finding suggests that learned signal value can modulate the strength of capture that would otherwise by caused by physical salience, and drive capture by non-physically salient stimuli in its own right.”
§ Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review > Learned value influences capture by stimuli that have never been task-relevant.
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Here, attentional orienting to the high-value cues is never rewarded and so it is not possible for an attentional habit to have developed.”
- Also stated in: § Summary: Learned Value Affects Top-Down and Bottom-Up Attention · plain
“The attentional bias must, therefore, be a consequence of the signal value of the cues and hence their ability to capture attention.”
§ Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review > Summary: Learned Value Affects Top-Down and Bottom-Up Attention
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Summary: Learned Value Affects Top-Down and Bottom-Up Attention · plain
In the paper
“That is, people were more likely to look at high-value distractors than low-value distractors, even though doing so lost them the large reward that they would otherwise have obtained.”
§ Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review > Learned value influences capture by stimuli that have never been task-relevant.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Le Pelley et al., 2015
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is not possible to say for certain which of these two potential mechanisms is responsible for the effects seen in the training phasetest phase and the intertrial priming procedures described aboveboth can explain the observed data.”
§ Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review > Summary: Learned Value Affects Top-Down and Bottom-Up Attention
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Neither Anderson et al. nor Qi et al. tested whether capture by the former target was significantly greater in a rewarded procedure than in an unrewarded procedure, so these studies do not provide a robust test of the claim that reward is the critical variable.”
§ Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review > Training phasetest phase procedures.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Suppose that participants must respond to a red target on trial T; this will produce a performance benefit on the next trial (T+1) if it also features a red target, but a performance decrement if trial T+1 has a green target while a red stimulus appears as a distractor (Maljkovic & Nakayama, 1994, 1996, 2000).”
§ Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review > Inter-trial priming procedures.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Maljkovic & Nakayama, 1994, 1996, 2000
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In combination, then, it seems that learning of 'stable' reward associations can exert a long-term influence on attentional capture, while experience of individual and unpredictable stimulus-reward pairings can have a similar, but short-term, effect on capture.”
§ Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review > Inter-trial priming procedures.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“A fundamental principal of reward learning is that following an action with reward increases the likelihood that the action will occur in the future (the so-called Law of Effect : Thorndike, 1911).”
§ Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review > Learned value influences capture by stimuli that have never been task-relevant.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Thorndike, 1911
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The implication is that capture by the former high-reward target in the rewarded version of the task is a product of its learned value, and not merely because it has previously been a target.”
§ Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review > Training phasetest phase procedures.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Wang et al. are alone in testing this critical interaction, which they did find to be significant.”
§ Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review > Training phasetest phase procedures.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Wang et al.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As for the spatial studies discussed earlier, this suggests that stimuli with high learned value captured attention and so reduced attentional resources available for processing the target.However here this capture effect must have been nonspatial, since all stimuli were presented in the same location.”
§ Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review > Learned value influences capture by stimuli that have never been task-relevant.
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Furthermore, using EEG, Wills et al. (2014) showed that a validated neural marker of selective attention was also modulated by IBRE training, consistent with greater attention to C than to B.”
§ Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review > A Simpler Model: Attention Is Determined by Associative Strength
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Wills et al., 2014
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“raising the possibility that it is this greater selection history (rather than the difference in learned value) that drives greater capture by these stimuli on test.”
§ Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review > Conclusion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Failing and Theeuwes (2015)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There is an abundance of evidence for attentional learning in humans.Attention is influenced both by learning about the predictiveness of a stimulus (how much information it provides about other, outcome events) and about its value (how significant-rewarding, punishingthose outcome events are).Furthermore, both of these phenomena manifest themselves as both top-down (controlled) and bottom-up (aut”
§ Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review > Summary and Conclusions
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Most of the data presented in this review are captured by the idea that learning increases attention to cues to the extent that those cues acquire associative strength.The IBRE represents the single exception to this rule of which we are aware.”
§ Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review > A Simpler Model: Attention Is Determined by Associative Strength
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“So the IBRE can be observed even when C has (if anything) a lower associative strength than B. As such, we cannot easily explain an attentional advantage for C over B in terms of our model which equates attention with associative strength.”
§ Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review > A Simpler Model: Attention Is Determined by Associative Strength
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“So this model anticipates an influence of learned value on attention early in training, but not at asymptote.”
§ Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review > References
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“According to the uncertainty principle this should produce an increase in attention, and hence increase the speed with which the new relationship between the target and the strong outcome is learned in Phase 2.”
§ Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review > Conclusion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The automatic attention that participants pay to cues that predict valued outcomes is not goal-directed or under top-down control, but neither is it driven by the intrinsic, physical properties of the stimulus.Rather, the change in effective salience of the cue is the result of training; it comes about as a consequence of the participant's experience with, and memory of, that cue and its”
§ Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review > Conclusion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“does not fit the standard goal-directed/stimulus-driven distinction.”
§ Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review > Conclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In many (but not all) cases where an IBRE is observed, accuracy in predicting the common outcome for cue B alone numerically exceeds accuracy for predicting the rare outcome for cue C alone (Bohil, Markman & Maddox, 2005;Medin & Edelson, 1988;Wills et al., 2014;Winman, Wennerholm, Juslin & Shanks, 2005); in one case (Wills et al., 2014) this advantage for B over C was tested statistically, and”
§ Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review > A Simpler Model: Attention Is Determined by Associative Strength
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bohil, Markman & Maddox, 2005
- Not checked yetcites Medin & Edelson, 1988
- Not checked yetcites Wills et al., 2014
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“outcome they were paired with (gain or loss of money), and the probability with which that outcome occurred.Hence it is unclear which was responsible for the differences in attention observed during the test phase of these studies.”
§ Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review > Conclusion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
Research concerning interactions between attention and learning in humans has proceeded largely independently in two different psychological traditions.
“Interestingly, research concerning interactions between attention and learning in humans has (to date) proceeded largely independently in two different psychological traditions.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The instructions given to the Change and Continuity groups were equally effective in producing top-down changes in attention.
“However, the validity of this conclusion rests on the assumption that the instructions given to the Change and Continuity groups were equally effective in producing top-down changes in attention, but this may not be the case.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Unpublished attempts to replicate the negative transfer effect of Griffiths et al. (2011), by the original researchers, have been mixed.
“It should be noted, however, that unpublished attempts to replicate the negative transfer effect of Griffiths et al. (2011), by the original researchers, have been mixed.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Training with a moderate outcome slows later learning with a larger outcome.
“There is no doubt that training with a moderate outcome slows later learning with a larger outcome.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
In studies that do not involve substantial monetary rewards, participants' primary motivation is to complete the experiment as quickly as possible and with minimum effort.
“In studies that do not involve substantial monetary rewards (the vast majority of studies of predictiveness in humans), it seems fair to assume that participants' primary motivation is to complete the experiment as quickly as possible and with minimum effort.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Singleton search primarily reflects the operation of rapid, bottom-up attentional processes due to the physical salience of the target.
“It is often assumed that such singleton search primarily reflects the operation of rapid, bottom-up attentional processes due to the physical salience of the target, so it seems plausible that reward might be modulating the operation of this bottomup process (see also O'Brien & Raymond, 2012;Stankevich & Geng, 2015, for further evidence consistent with a rapid influence of learned value).”
The authors state this as an assumption.
In the simpler model, attention to a stimulus is determined by its absolute associative strength, which is in turn limited by the outcome magnitude λ.
“since attention is determined by associative strength, which is in turn limited by”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Mackintosh’s attention rule is consistent with a number of results (e.g., Le Pelley et al., 2016; Pearce & Mackintosh, 2010), and contemporary approaches to attention and learning now suppose that both the Mackintosh and Pearce-Hall rules can play a role in any situation (e.g., Le Pelley, 2004; Pearce & Mackintosh, 2010; see Chao et al., 2021, for recent discussion).”
From Context, attention, and the switch between habit and goal-direction in behavior (2021) · cites this paper as Le Pelley et al., 2016
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review > Controlled and Automatic Attentional Processes
“Recall that, in Phase 1, one of the foods presented on each trial was always paired with the same type of allergic reaction (e.g., apple was always paired with nausea), whereas the other food was equally paired with both types of reaction (e.g., banana was sometimes paired with nausea and sometimes with sweating).”
§ Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review > Simple learned irrelevance.
“In training Phase 1, participants learned about patient 'Mr X', who suffered from either sweating or dizziness.”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review > Learned Value
“The resulting 195 hits were reviewed for content and for references to other relevant articles (4 found).This yielded 86 articles relevant to the current discussion”
§ Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review > Learned Value
“-14 articles; (2) The article described data from nonhuman animals only, whereas our focus is on humans -9 articles; (3) The article presented data from humans, but did not bear on the question of how learning changes attention to cues -86 articles.”
Citations
Cites
James, W. (1891) · Personality Culture Society · doi:10.1037/11059-000 · Cited by 25,876
Control of goal-directed and stimulus-driven attention in the brain
Corbetta, M., & Shulman, G. L. (2002) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn755 · Cited by 12,881
Posner, M. I. (1980) · Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1080/00335558008248231 · Cited by 9,670
Rescorla, R. A. (1972) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 7,268
Pearce, J. M., & Hall, G. (1980) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.87.6.532 · Cited by 3,023
Components of visual orienting
Posner, M. I. (1984) · Attention and performance · Cited by 2,980
A theory of attention: Variations in the associability of stimuli with reinforcement
Mackintosh, N. J. (1975) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/h0076778 · Cited by 2,733
Temporary suppression of visual processing in an RSVP task: An attentional blink?
Raymond, J. E., Shapiro, K. L., & Arnell, K. M. (1992) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance · doi:10.1037//0096-1523.18.3.849 · Cited by 2,286
Attention, similarity, and the identification-categorization relationship.
Nosofsky, R. M. (1986) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · doi:10.1037//0096-3445.115.1.39 · Cited by 2,207
Attention, similarity, and the identification–categorization relationship.
Nosofsky, R. M. (1986) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · doi:10.1037/0096-3445.115.1.39 · Cited by 2,136
Research works printed but not linked: 12
- Shone, Harris & Livesey, 2015: see also Kersten, Goldstone & Schaffert, 1998) 3 Some studies of blocking have found evidence of greater overt attention to the pretrained cue A than to the blocked cue B (Ellis et al., 2014; Le Pelley et al., 2007). This finding is consistent with the predictiveness principle (since pretraining renders A a better predictor of the outcome), but not with the uncertainty principle (since pretraining means that the outcome on AB trials is, if anything, less surprising given the presence of A than the presence of B). However, the difference in predictiveness between A and B is confounded with a difference ©2016 American Psychological Association. This article may not exactly replicate the authoritative document published in the APA journal. It is not the copy of record. in familiarity (pretraining means that A is experienced more times than has B). Given the possibility that familiarity might exert an independent effect on attention, the finding of greater attention to A than B provides somewhat ambiguous support for the predictiveness principle over the uncertainty principle. 4 (Balcetis, Dunning & Granot, 2012; Brielmann & Spering, 2015;
- Chapman, Gallivan, Wong, et al., 2015; O'Brien & Raymond, 2012; Raymond & O'Brien, 2009; Rothkirch et al., 2013; see also Rutherford, O'Brien & Raymond, 2010) conflated learned value and learned predictiveness: stimuli differed both in the nature of the ©2016 American Psychological Association. This article may not exactly replicate the authoritative document published in the APA journal. It is not the copy of record. References a marks articles retrieved from the ISI Web of Science database search for articles on learned predictiveness (Search 1 -see main text); b marks additional articles on learned predictiveness found via references in articles from this search. c marks articles retrieved from the ISI Web of Science database search for articles on learned value (Search 2 -see main text); d marks additional articles on learned value found via references in articles from this search.
- Chun, M.M., & Potter, M.C. (1995). A two-stage model for multiple target detection in RSVP. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 109-127.
- Holland, P.C., & Maddux, J.-M. (2010). Brain systems of attention in associative learning. In C.J. Mitchell & M.E. Le Pelley (Eds.), Attention and Associative Learning: From Brain to Behaviour (pp. 305-349). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
- Holmes, N.M., & Harris, J.A. (2010). Latent inhibition. In C.J. Mitchell & M.E. Le Pelley (Eds.), Attention and associative learning: From brain to behaviour (pp. 99-130). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
- Kruschke, J.K. (2009). Highlighting: A canonical experiment. In B. Ross (Ed.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation (Vol. 51, pp. 153-185). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
- Marissen, M.A.E., Franken, I.H.A., Waters, A.J., Blanken, P., van den Brink, W., & Hendriks, ©2016 American Psychological Association. This article may not exactly replicate the authoritative document published in the APA journal. It is not the copy of record.
- Pavlov, I.P. (1927). Conditioned reflexes. London: Oxford University Press.
- Pearce, J.M., George, D.N., & Redhead, E.S. (1998). The role of attention in the solution of ©2016 American Psychological Association. This article may not exactly replicate the authoritative document published in the APA journal. It is not the copy of record. conditional discriminations. In N.A. Schmajuk & P.C. Holland (Eds.), Occasion setting: Associative learning and cognition in animals. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
- Posner, M.I., Nissen, M.J., & Ogden, W.C. (1978). Attended and unattended processing modes: The role of set for spatial location. In H.L. Pick & I.J. Saltzman (Eds.), Modes of perceiving and processing information. (pp. 137-157). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
- Siddle, D.A.T., Booth, M.L., & Packer, J.S. (1987). Effects of stimulus preexposure on omission responding and omission-produced dishabituation of the human electrodermal response. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section B-Comparative and ©2016 American Psychological Association. This article may not exactly replicate the authoritative document published in the APA journal. It is not the copy of record. Physiological Psychology, 39, 339-363.
- As A develops associative strength, A increases for both = 0.8 and = 0.3. However, since attention is determined by associative strength, which is in turn limited by , asymptotic attention is greater when outcome magnitude is larger than when it is small. So this simpler model anticipates a persistent influence of learned value on attention. [Other parameter: S = 0.3. (Figure taken from Le Pelley, Beesley & Griffiths, in press) ©2016 American Psychological Association. This article may not exactly replicate the authoritative document published in the APA journal. It is not the copy of record.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Selection history: How reward modulates selectivity of visual attention.
Failing, M., & Theeuwes, J. (2018) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-017-1380-y · Cited by 345
“…during the test session can therefore be understood in terms of an instrumentally conditioned response (cf. Thorndike, 1911) or habitual orienting response instigated by reward (Battentional habit^; see Anderson, 2016a; Le Pelley et al., 2016) that is carried over from the training session.”
BackgroundCarden, L., & Wood, W. (2018) · Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.cobeha.2017.12.009 · Cited by 252
Liu, X., Ma, Y., Ouyang, R., Zeng, Z., Zhan, Z., Lu, H., Cui, Y., Dai, Z., Luo, L., He, C., et al. (2020) · Journal of Neuroinflammation · doi:10.1186/s12974-020-01905-2 · Cited by 249
Historical pitfalls and new directions in the neuroscience of emotion
Barrett, L. F., & Satpute, A. B. (2019) · Neuroscience Letters · doi:10.1016/j.neulet.2017.07.045 · Cited by 180
A model for learning based on the joint estimation of stochasticity and volatility
Piray, P., & Daw, N. D. (2021) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-021-26731-9 · Cited by 153
Reinecke, L., Klimmt, C., Meier, A., Reich, S., Hefner, D., Knop-Huelss, K., Rieger, D., & Vorderer, P. (2018) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0205384 · Cited by 197
Value-based attentional capture affects multi-alternative decision making
Gluth, S., Spektor, M. S., & Rieskamp, J. (2018) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.39659 · Cited by 134
Mapping sign-tracking and goal-tracking onto human behaviors
Colaizzi, J. M., Flagel, S. B., Joyner, M. A., Gearhardt, A. N., Stewart, J. L., & Paulus, M. P. (2020) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2020.01.018 · Cited by 128
Holistic Reinforcement Learning: The Role of Structure and Attention
Radulescu, A., Niv, Y., & Ballard, I. C. (2019) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2019.01.010 · Cited by 109
Refocusing neuroscience: moving away from mental categories and towards complex behaviours
Pessoa, L., Medina, L. M., & Desfilis, E. (2021) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2020.0534 · Cited by 106
Context, attention, and the switch between habit and goal-direction in behavior
Bouton, M. E. (2021) · Learning & Behavior · doi:10.3758/s13420-021-00488-z · Cited by 100
Pavlovian reward learning underlies value driven attentional capture
Bucker, B., & Theeuwes, J. (2017) · Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics · doi:10.3758/s13414-016-1241-1 · Cited by 93
The Dopamine Prediction Error: Contributions to Associative Models of Reward Learning
Nasser, H. M., Calu, D. J., Schoenbaum, G. M., & Sharpe, M. J. (2017) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00244 · Cited by 97
Selective sustained attention: a developmental foundation for cognition
Fisher, A. V. (2019) · Current Opinion in Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.06.002 · Cited by 100
Measuring habit formation through goal-directed response switching.
Luque, D., Molinero, S., Watson, P., López, F. J., & Pelley, M. E. L. (2019) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · doi:10.1037/xge0000722 · Cited by 83
Feature-specific prediction errors and surprise across macaque fronto-striatal circuits
Oemisch, M., Westendorff, S., Azimi, M., Hassani, S. A., Ardid, S., Tiesinga, P. H. E., & Womelsdorf, T. (2019) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-018-08184-9 · Cited by 72
Prioritizing pleasure and pain: attentional capture by reward-related and punishment-related stimuli
Watson, P., Pearson, D., Wiers, R. W. H. J., & Pelley, M. E. L. (2019) · Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.cobeha.2018.12.002 · Cited by 76
On the automaticity of attentional orienting to threatening stimuli.
Anderson, B. A., & Britton, M. K. (2019) · Emotion · doi:10.1037/emo0000596 · Cited by 69
The cultural evolution of cultural evolution
Birch, J., & Heyes, C. M. (2021) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2020.0051 · Cited by 69
Pearson, D., Osborn, R., Whitford, T. J., Failing, M., Theeuwes, J., & Le Pelley, M. E. (2016) · Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics · doi:10.3758/s13414-016-1135-2 · Cited by 65
Reward-driven distraction: A meta-analysis.
Rusz, D., Pelley, M. E. L., Kompier, M. A. J., Mait, L., & Bijleveld, E. (2020) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/bul0000296 · Cited by 67
The importance of an exaggerated attention bottleneck for understanding psychopathy
Baskin-sommers, A. R., & Brazil, I. A. (2022) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2022.01.001 · Cited by 63
Jiang, Y. V., & Sisk, C. A. (2018) · Current Opinion in Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2018.11.014 · Cited by 65
Failing, M., & Theeuwes, J. (2017) · Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics · doi:10.3758/s13414-017-1376-8 · Cited by 58
Albertella, L., Copeland, J., Pearson, D., Watson, P., Wiers, R. W. H. J., & Pelley, M. E. L. (2017) · Drug and Alcohol Dependence · doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2017.01.041 · Cited by 59
Positive emotions have a unique capacity to capture attention
Gupta, R. (2019) · Progress in brain research · doi:10.1016/bs.pbr.2019.02.001 · Cited by 64
Valence, Not Utility, Underlies Reward-Driven Prioritization in Human Vision
Barbaro, L., Peelen, M. V., & Hickey, C. (2017) · Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.1128-17.2017 · Cited by 56
Goal-Directed and Habit-Like Modulations of Stimulus Processing during Reinforcement Learning
Luque, D., Beesley, T., Morris, R. W., Jack, B. N., Griffiths, O., Whitford, T. J., & Pelley, M. E. L. (2017) · Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.3205-16.2017 · Cited by 54
Self-citationDelayed disengagement of attention from distractors signalling reward
Watson, P., Pearson, D., Theeuwes, J., Most, S. B., & Pelley, M. E. L. (2019) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2019.104125 · Cited by 54
Watson, P., Pearson, D., Most, S. B., Theeuwes, J., Wiers, R. W. H. J., & Pelley, M. E. L. (2019) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0226284 · Cited by 55
History Modulates Early Sensory Processing of Salient Distractors
Adam, K. C. S., & Serences, J. T. (2021) · Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.3099-20.2021 · Cited by 49
Le Pelley, M. E., Seabrooke, T., Kennedy, B. L., Pearson, D., & Most, S. B. (2017) · Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics · doi:10.3758/s13414-017-1346-1 · Cited by 44
Evidence of a goal-directed process in human Pavlovian-instrumental transfer.
Seabrooke, T., Pelley, M. E. L., Hogarth, L., & Mitchell, C. J. (2017) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Animal Learning and Cognition · doi:10.1037/xan0000147 · Cited by 44
Self-citationAttentional economics links value-modulated attentional capture and decision-making
Pearson, D., Watson, P., Albertella, L., & Pelley, M. E. L. (2022) · Nature Reviews Psychology · doi:10.1038/s44159-022-00053-z · Cited by 51
Dadds, M. R., & Frick, P. J. (2019) · Behaviour Research and Therapy · doi:10.1016/j.brat.2019.103410 · Cited by 47
Capture and Control: Working Memory Modulates Attentional Capture by Reward-Related Stimuli
Watson, P., Pearson, D., Chow, M., Theeuwes, J., Wiers, R. W. H. J., Most, S. B., & Pelley, M. E. L. (2019) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797619855964 · Cited by 46
Oculomotor capture is influenced by expected reward value but (maybe) not predictiveness
Pelley, M. E. L., Pearson, D., Porter, A., Yee, H. F., & Luque, D. (2017) · Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1080/17470218.2017.1313874 · Cited by 49
Chen, J., Shi, Y. T., & Li, N. (2023) · Safety Science · doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2023.106320 · Cited by 41
Modulation of attention and action in the medial prefrontal cortex of rats.
Sharpe, M. J., & Killcross, S. (2018) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/rev0000118 · Cited by 41
Time to Pay Attention? Information Search Explains Amplified Framing Effects Under Time Pressure
Roberts, I. D., Teoh, Y. Y., & Hutcherson, C. A. C. (2021) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/09567976211026983 · Cited by 45
Theeuwes, J., & Failing, M. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108891288 · Cited by 50
Tankelevitch, L., Spaak, E., Rushworth, M. F. S., & Stokes, M. G. (2020) · Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.1172-19.2020 · Cited by 38
Koenig, S., Uengoer, M., & Lachnit, H. (2017) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2017.00266 · Cited by 36
Gazing at the Gazers: An Investigation of Travel Advertisement Modality Interference
Zhao, T., Wong, I. A., Tong, P., Li, N., & Xiong, X. (2021) · Journal of Travel Research · doi:10.1177/00472875211002645 · Cited by 37
Wolf, C., & Lappe, M. (2021) · Cognitive Neurodynamics · doi:10.1007/s11571-020-09661-y · Cited by 38
Stimulus-driven and goal-driven effects on Pavlovian associative reward learning
Bucker, B., & Theeuwes, J. (2017) · Visual Cognition · doi:10.1080/13506285.2017.1399948 · Cited by 37
Learning from failure: Errorful generation improves memory for items, not associations
Seabrooke, T., Hollins, T. J., Kent, C. D., Wills, A. J., & Mitchell, C. J. (2018) · Journal of Memory and Language · doi:10.1016/j.jml.2018.10.001 · Cited by 37
Self-citationViewing Adaptive Social Choice Through the Lens of Associative Learning
FeldmanHall, O., & Dunsmoor, J. E. (2018) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691618792261 · Cited by 33
Overt attentional capture by reward-related stimuli overcomes inhibitory suppression.
Pearson, D., Watson, P., Cheng, P., & Pelley, M. E. L. (2020) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance · doi:10.1037/xhp0000728 · Cited by 34
Predictable Events Enhance Word Learning in Toddlers
Benitez, V. L., & Saffran, J. R. (2018) · Current Biology · doi:10.1016/j.cub.2018.06.017 · Cited by 35
Winners and losers: Reward and punishment produce biases in temporal selection.
Pelley, M. E. L., Watson, P., Pearson, D., Abeywickrama, R. S., & Most, S. B. (2018) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037/xlm0000612 · Cited by 32
The Emergence of Richly Organized Semantic Knowledge from Simple Statistics: A Synthetic Review
Unger, L., & Fisher, A. V. (2021) · Developmental Review · doi:10.1016/j.dr.2021.100949 · Cited by 31
Pohořalá, V., Enkel, T., Bartsch, D., Spanagel, R., & Bernardi, R. E. (2021) · Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1007/s00213-021-05858-z · Cited by 29
Social Smartphone Apps Do Not Capture Attention Despite Their Perceived High Reward Value
Johannes, N., Dora, J., & Rusz, D. (2019) · Collabra Psychology · doi:10.1525/collabra.207 · Cited by 34
Gut-Brain Axis: Possible Role of Gut Microbiota in Perioperative Neurocognitive Disorders
Wang, X., Li, H., Li, X., Yuan, C., & Zhao, H. (2021) · Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnagi.2021.745774 · Cited by 31
Pelley, M. E. L., Ung, R., Mine, C., Most, S. B., Watson, P., Pearson, D., & Theeuwes, J. (2022) · Attention Perception & Psychophysics · doi:10.3758/s13414-021-02426-7 · Cited by 32
Zhang, Y., Song, H., Liu, X., Tang, D., Chen, Y., & Zhang, X. (2017) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2017.00095 · Cited by 39
Easdale, L. C., Pelley, M. E. L., & Beesley, T. (2017) · Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1080/17470218.2017.1363257 · Cited by 34
Self-citationLearning mechanisms underlying accurate and biased contingency judgments.
Matute, H., Blanco, F., & Díaz‐Lago, M. (2019) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Animal Learning and Cognition · doi:10.1037/xan0000222 · Cited by 31
Achievement motivation modulates Pavlovian aversive conditioning to goal-relevant stimuli
Stussi, Y., Ferrero, A., Pourtois, G., & Sander, D. (2019) · npj Science of Learning · doi:10.1038/s41539-019-0043-3 · Cited by 33
Bayesian reinforcement learning: A basic overview
Kang, P., Tobler, P. N., & Dayan, P. (2024) · Neurobiology of Learning and Memory · doi:10.1016/j.nlm.2024.107924 · Cited by 32
Schlegelmilch, R., Wills, A. J., & von Helversen, B. (2021) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/rev0000321 · Cited by 26
Self-citationGong, M., Jia, K., & Li, S. (2017) · Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.0217-17.2017 · Cited by 29
Three Ways That Non-associative Knowledge May Affect Associative Learning Processes
Thorwart, A., & Livesey, E. J. (2016) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.02024 · Cited by 25
Deterministic response strategies in a trial-and-error learning task
Mohr, H., Zwosta, K., Marković, D., Bitzer, S., Wolfensteller, U., & Ruge, H. (2018) · PLoS Computational Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006621 · Cited by 26
Pavlovian safety learning: An integrative theoretical review
Laing, P. A. F., Vervliet, B., Dunsmoor, J. E., & Harrison, B. J. (2024) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-024-02559-4 · Cited by 27
Learning to avoid looking: Competing influences of reward on overt attentional selection
Pearson, D., & Pelley, M. E. L. (2020) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-020-01770-3 · Cited by 22
The blocking effect in associative learning involves learned biases in rapid attentional capture
Luque, D., Vadillo, M. A., Gutiérrez‐Cobo, M. J., & Pelley, M. E. L. (2016) · Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1080/17470218.2016.1262435 · Cited by 24
Schlegelmilch, R., & von Helversen, B. (2020) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · doi:10.1037/xge0000747 · Cited by 21
Reversal training facilitates acquisition of new learning in a Morris water maze
Alcalá, J. A., Callejas-Aguilera, J. E., Nelson, J. B., & Rosas, J. M. (2019) · Learning & Behavior · doi:10.3758/s13420-019-00392-7 · Cited by 20
Biased choice and incentive salience: Implications for addiction.
Pelley, M. E. L., Watson, P., & Wiers, R. W. H. J. (2024) · Behavioral Neuroscience · doi:10.1037/bne0000583 · Cited by 21
Mixed signals: The effect of conflicting reward- and goal-driven biases on selective attention
Preciado, D. F., Munneke, J., & Theeuwes, J. (2017) · Attention Perception & Psychophysics · doi:10.3758/s13414-017-1322-9 · Cited by 22
Beesley, T., Hanafi, G., Vadillo, M. A., Shanks, D. R., & Livesey, E. J. (2018) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037/xlm0000467 · Cited by 18
Self-citationWhen the stimulus is predicted and what the stimulus predicts: Alternative accounts of habituation.
Hall, G., & Rodrı́guez, G. (2020) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Animal Learning and Cognition · doi:10.1037/xan0000237 · Cited by 18
Effects of acceptance and commitment therapy on cognitive function: A systematic review
Liu, H., Liu, N., Chong, S. T., Koh, E. B. Y., & Badayai, A. R. A. (2023) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e14057 · Cited by 25
Feature predictiveness and selective attention in pigeons’ categorization learning.
Castro, L., & Wasserman, E. A. (2017) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Animal Learning and Cognition · doi:10.1037/xan0000146 · Cited by 17
Attentional capture by signals of reward persists following outcome devaluationPreprint
Watson, P., Pavri, Y., Le, J., Pearson, D., & Pelley, M. E. L. (2022) · Learning & Memory · doi:10.1101/lm.053569.122 · Cited by 18
Affect-congruent attention modulates generalized reward expectations
Bennett, D., Radulescu, A., Zorowitz, S., Felso, V., & Niv, Y. (2023) · PLoS Computational Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1011707 · Cited by 17
Learned predictiveness models predict opposite attention biases in the inverse base-rate effect.
Don, H. J., Beesley, T., & Livesey, E. J. (2019) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Animal Learning and Cognition · doi:10.1037/xan0000196 · Cited by 16
Self-citationAssessing the role of accuracy-based feedback in value-driven attentional capture
Grubb, M. A., & Li, Y. (2018) · Attention Perception & Psychophysics · doi:10.3758/s13414-018-1494-y · Cited by 17
Uncertainty-modulated attentional capture: Outcome variance increases attentional priority.
Pearson, D., Chong, A., Chow, J. Y. L., Garner, K., Theeuwes, J., & Pelley, M. E. L. (2024) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · doi:10.1037/xge0001586 · Cited by 15
Pavlovian reward learning elicits attentional capture by reward-associated stimuli
Mine, C., & Saiki, J. (2018) · Attention Perception & Psychophysics · doi:10.3758/s13414-018-1502-2 · Cited by 19
Reward and emotion influence attentional bias in rapid serial visual presentation
Gutiérrez‐Cobo, M. J., Luque, D., Most, S. B., Fernández‐Berrocal, P., & Pelley, M. E. L. (2019) · Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1177/1747021819840615 · Cited by 15
Cognitive–affective factors underlying disinhibitory disorders and legal implications
Baskin-sommers, A. R., Ruiz, S. G., Sarcos, B., & Simmons, C. (2022) · Nature Reviews Psychology · doi:10.1038/s44159-022-00020-8 · Cited by 17
Initial training with difficult items does not facilitate category learning
Edmunds, C. E. R., Wills, A. J., & Milton, F. (2017) · Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1080/17470218.2017.1370477 · Cited by 22
Self-citationA rise in prediction error increases attention to irrelevant cues
Torrents‐Rodas, D., Koenig, S., Uengoer, M., & Lachnit, H. (2020) · Biological Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2020.108007 · Cited by 16
Paskewitz, S., & Jones, M. (2020) · Journal of Mathematical Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jmp.2020.102371 · Cited by 16
Effects of Outcome Predictability on Human Learning
Griffiths, O., & Thorwart, A. (2017) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00511 · Cited by 14
Seabrooke, T., Pelley, M. L. L., Porter, A., & Mitchell, C. J. (2018) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cognition · doi:10.1037/xan0000176 · Cited by 13
Self-citationContext dependency as a Function of Prediction Error-Based Attention
Rosas, J. M., & Nelson, J. B. (2019) · Psicologica · doi:10.2478/psicolj-2019-0003 · Cited by 13
Learning Where to Look for High Value Improves Decision Making Asymmetrically
Colas, J. T., & Lu, J. (2017) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02000 · Cited by 16
Are online games a blessing or evil? The moderating role of self-worth
Ding, J., Shan, R., Chenmeng, M., Tu, M., Yu, Q., Kong, F., & Zhao, Q. (2021) · Thinking Skills and Creativity · doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100915 · Cited by 16
Talmi, D., Kavaliauskaitė, D., & Daw, N. D. (2021) · Learning & Memory · doi:10.1101/lm.053470.121 · Cited by 14
Expectations generated based on associative learning guide visual search for novel packaging labels
Jiang, C., Guo, X., Huang, J., & Wan, X. I. (2022) · Food Quality and Preference · doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2022.104743 · Cited by 12
Trask, S. (2018) · Learning & Behavior · doi:10.3758/s13420-018-0339-9 · Cited by 12
Testing reward‐cue attentional salience: Attainment and dynamic changes
Tommaso, M. D., & Turatto, M. (2021) · British Journal of Psychology · doi:10.1111/bjop.12537 · Cited by 13
Stronger attentional biases can be linked to higher reward rate in preferential choice
Zilker, V. (2022) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2022.105095 · Cited by 16
Give Me a Straight Answer: Response Ambiguity Diminishes Likability
Wang, D., & Ziano, I. (2023) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/01461672231199161 · Cited by 15
The influence of emotion on temporal context models
Lohnas, L. J., & Howard, M. W. (2024) · Cognition & Emotion · doi:10.1080/02699931.2024.2371075 · Cited by 14
Awareness is necessary for attentional biases by location–reward association
Mine, C., Yokoyama, T., & Takeda, Y. (2021) · Attention Perception & Psychophysics · doi:10.3758/s13414-021-02280-7 · Cited by 9
Metadata
- Authors
- Le Pelley, M. E., Mitchell, C. J., Beesley, T., George, D. N., & Wills, A. J.
- Affiliations
- University of Plymouth (GB)
- UNSW Sydney (AU)
- University of Hull (GB)
- Venue
- Psychological Bulletin
- Published
- 2016-10
- Volume
- 142
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 1111-1140
- ISSN
- 0033-2909 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1455
- OpenAlex
- W2494089081
- Semantic Scholar
- 5345fafe1c561edf9a874d44ae30da5ac1e797cf
- Cited by
- 329
- References
- 297
- Citations by year
- 2026: 21 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 49 · 2020: 37 · 2019: 38 · 2018: 32 · 2017: 32 · 2016: 5
- FWCI
- 22.70
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Psychological Bulletin (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Repository@Hull (Worktribe) (University of Hull) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Repository@Hull (Worktribe) (University of Hull) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- PEARL (University of Plymouth) (submittedVersion)
- Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- University of Cambridge
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Visual Attention and Saliency Detection
- Keywords
- attention, associative learning, attentional control, cognitive control
- MeSH terms
- Association Learning, Attention, Humans
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-09, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-09 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
