CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 329Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesMemory Processes and InfluencesVisual Attention and Saliency Detection

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 access
Le Pelley, Mike E., Mitchell, Chris J., Beesley, Tom, George, David N., Wills, Andy J.·2016·Psychological Bulletin
DOI 10.1037/bul0000064
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

. 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

Crossref · 10.1037/bul0000064

Cites

309 of 309 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 170 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

Show all 158 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 58
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 28
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 2
79 of 79

  • 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”
7 of 7

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?

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.

  • Phase 1 example uses a Phase 2 reaction

    Minor

    The paper says Mr X's Phase 1 reactions were sweating or dizziness, but later describes nausea as a Phase 1 reaction. Nausea is introduced as a reaction for Mr Y in Phase 2.

  • Four additional articles are missing from the Search 2 tally

    Minor

    The exclusion categories total 109 articles, leaving 86 of the original 195 hits relevant. The paper also says it found four other relevant articles through references, but still reports 86 relevant articles in total; including those four would make 90.

2 of 2

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 12

  1. 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;
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. Pavlov, I.P. (1927). Conditioned reflexes. London: Oxford University Press.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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

See all 329

Related

See all

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)
ORCID
Venue
Psychological Bulletin
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2016-10
Volume
142
Issue
10
Pages
1111-1140
ISSN
  • 0033-2909 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1455
DOI
10.1037/bul0000064
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