Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review.

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.”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Denton and Kruschke (2006)

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)”

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.”

In the paper

“Here, we find that people pay more attention to predictors of valuable outcomes than predictors of nonvaluable outcomes.”

In the paper

“The ID-ED shift effect is consistent with the idea of greater attention to predictive cues than nonpredictive cues.”

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.”

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.”

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.”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Le Pelley and McLaren (2003)

In the paper

“The ID-ED shift procedure overcomes the problems with the simple learned irrelevance procedure in the previous section.”

In the paper

“This learned predictiveness effect demonstrated by changing outcomes between two phases of training has been replicated many times.2”

In the paper

“However, the support for the predictiveness principle offered by this simple learned irrelevance effect is equivocal, because it is open to other interpretations.”

In the paper

“This finding has been well replicated (Myers, Warren, et al., 2000;Orosz, Feldon, Gal, Simon & Cattapan-Ludewig, 2007;Orosz, Feldon, Gal, Simon & Cattapan-Ludewig, 2008;Orosz et al., 2011).”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Myers, Warren, et al., 2000
• Not checked yetcites Orosz, Feldon, Gal, Simon & Cattapan-Ludewig, 2007
• Not checked yetcites Orosz et al., 2011

In the paper

“That is, a cue's associability appears to be influenced by its intrinsic physical salience.”

In the paper

“Associability can be influenced by absolute predictiveness (how well do apples predict sweating?)rather than a comparison of relative predictiveness (do apples predict sweating better than bananas do?)”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Beesley & Le Pelley, 2010
• Not checked yetcites Kattner, 2015
• Not checked yetcites Le Pelley, Turnbull, et al., 2010

In the paper

“We will see that there is good evidence for the idea that predictive cues attract more attention than non-predictive cues.”

In the paper

“These findings suggest that, under some circumstances, attention can operate at the level of cue compounds, e.g., the configuration of apples and context C1 is predictive, whereas the configuration of bananas and context C1 is nonpredictive, so the former configuration receives more attention than the latter”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites George & Pearce, 1999

In the paper

“This finding suggests that the predictiveness of cues established in Phase 1 produced a persistent bias in the associability of those cues that carried over to, and influenced learning in, Phase 2.”

In the paper

“Perhaps the strongest evidence is provided by the learned predictiveness effect (the third of the lines of evidence presented below).”

In the paper

“Eimas (1966) found significantly faster learning of discrimination D2 by group IDS than group EDS.”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Eimas (1966)

In the paper

“Stronger evidence for an influence of stimulus intensity on learning (rather than performance) comes from the overshadowing effect in conditioning, first reported by Pavlov (1927) in animals and since demonstrated many times in humans.”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Pavlov (1927)

In the paper

“The advantage for predictive cues over nonpredictive cues is consistent with the idea that experience of predictiveness influences attention in the manner suggested by the predictiveness principle.”

In the paper

“However, the finding that intense cues produce high responding on test does not, in itself, show that associability is increased by stimulus intensity.”

In the paper

“This finding follows naturally from the predictiveness principle.”

In the paper

“Participants who had been pre-exposed to the non-predictive balloon were slower to learn this colour-outcome relationship in phase 2 than control participants who had not been exposed to the coloured balloon during phase 1.”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Myers, Oliver, Warren & Gluck, 2000

In the paper

“The archetypal model of associative learning that incorporates the predictiveness principle, and its effect on associability, is that proposed by Mackintosh (1975)”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Mackintosh (1975)

In the paper

“This illustrates an idea that will be central to the arguments that followthat associability, physical salience and psychological salience are intimately linked.”

In the paper

“The influence of predictiveness can be contextually mediated.”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Lucke et al., 2013
• Not checked yetcites Uengoer & Lachnit, 2012
• Not checked yetcites Uengoer, Lachnit, Lotz, Koenig & Pearce, 2013

In the paper

“The ID-ED shift effect emerges naturally from the predictiveness principle; the idea that more attention is allocated to predictive than nonpredictive stimuli.”

In the paper

“Participants were faster to develop a conditioned blink response to the tone if it was loud than if it was soft.”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Beck (1963)

In the paper

“This work has shown that learning about stimuli influences subsequent search performance involving those stimuli.”

In the paper

“People are faster to respond to events that occur in locations to which they are attending.”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Posner, 1980
• Not checked yetcites Posner, Nissen & Ogden, 1978

In the paper

“The implication is that the influence of predictiveness on attention may, at least in part, reflect a change in the likelihood that cues will automatically capture attention, regardless of a person's goals or intentions.”

In the paper

“Moreover, this bias in eye gaze towards cues that had been predictive in Phase 1 persisted during training Phase 2, in which all cues were now equally predictive of the outcomes with which they were paired.”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Le Pelley et al., 2011

In the paper

“Detection of the predictive cues was, therefore, less impaired by the attentional blink than was detection of the nonpredictive cues.”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Livesey et al., 2009

In the paper

“There is also evidence (albeit equivocal) consistent with the existence of another, more automatic process that is resistant to instructional manipulations.”

In the paper

“The results suggested that the learned predictiveness effect could indeed be modulated by top-down control.”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Mitchell et al., 2012

In the paper

“Taking these data together, then, there is strong evidence that knowledge of predictiveness can influence attention in a controlled, top-down fashion.”

In the paper

“The reversal instructions given to the Change group produced a learned predictiveness effect in the opposite direction to that observed in the Continuity group.”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Mitchell et al., 2012

In the paper

“These findings represent strong evidence for a non-volitional component in the learned attentional bias towards previously predictive cues.”

In the paper

“The finding of greater eye gaze to predictive than non-predictive cues has now been replicated many times”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Beesley, Nguyen, Pearson & Le Pelley, 2015
• Not checked yetcites Haselgrove et al., 2015
• Not checked yetcites Hoffman & Rehder, 2010

In the paper

“In this section on the predictiveness principle, we have seen that predictiveness exerts an influence on many different measures of stimulus selection, not merely learning ratethese include eye gaze (overt attention), spatial cueing, and susceptibility to the attentional blink.”

In the paper

“Livesey et al. (2009: see Glautier & Shih, 2015, for a replication) demonstrated that the susceptibility of stimuli to the attentional blink varies as a function of predictiveness.”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Livesey et al., 2009
• Not checked yetcites Glautier & Shih, 2015

In the paper

“In a separate, subsequent test phase, participants showed an advantage in detecting previously-predictive target letters in the rapidly-presented letter streams, relative to previously-nonpredictive targets.”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Livesey et al., 2009

In the paper

“Responses to the probe were faster when it appeared in the location previously occupied by the predictive cue than when it appeared in the location of the nonpredictive cue”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Le Pelley, Vadillo, et al., 2013
• Not checked yetcites Haselgrove et al., 2015

In the paper

“an eye movement to a given location is always preceded by a spatial shift of attention to that location”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Deubel & Schneider, 1996

In the paper

“So models in which the effect of predictiveness is limited to an influence on associability (e.g., Mackintosh, 1975) do not go far enough.”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Mackintosh, 1975

In the paper

“Le Pelley, Vadillo, et al. (2013) also demonstrated that providing more time for participants to consciously process the stimuli-by increasing the SOA on test trials to 1000 ms-significantly weakened the influence of predictiveness on probe responding.”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Le Pelley, Vadillo, et al., 2013

In the paper

“During training Phase 1, participants spent longer looking at cues that predicted the outcome on each trial than cues that were nonpredictive.”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Le Pelley et al., 2011

In the paper

“The studies reviewed in this section suggest that learning about predictiveness can influence the extent to which cues will subsequently command attention.”

In the paper

“This finding is certainly consistent with the idea that associative learning effectively increases the salience of (and extent of attentional capture by) predictive stimuli, thereby increasing their detectability.”

In the paper

“Moreover, other studies using related procedures have found no evidence for a restoration of attention to a cue paired with a surprising outcome (i.e., no release from negative transfer : Packer, Siddle & Tipp, 1989;Siddle, 1985;Siddle, Booth & Packer, 1987; see also Lipp, Siddle & Dall 1993;Schutzwohl, 1998).”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Packer, Siddle & Tipp, 1989
• Not checked yetcites Siddle, 1985
• Not checked yetcites Siddle, Booth & Packer, 1987

In the paper

“We have already seen ample support in human learning for the predictiveness principle.”

In the paper

“Critically, Boll et al. found that the Pearce-Hall type model provided a significantly better fit to their learning data than the fixed learning-rate model.”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Boll et al., 2013

In the paper

“Other studies using electroencephalography (EEG) have shown that that a distinct component of electrophysiological activity elicited by feedback, known as the feedback-related negativity (FRN), may encode uPE; the FRN is thought to have its source in the anterior cingulate cortex”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Huang & Yu, 2014
• Not checked yetcites Mas-Herrero & Marco-Pallares, 2014

In the paper

“The evidence for the uncertainty principle from model-fitting studies is again, therefore, not compelling.”

In the paper

“Unfortunately, these findings have not proven to be robust to replication.”

In the paper

“That said, the exact region implicated varies between studies: either amygdala (Boll, Gamer, Gluth, Finsterbusch & Buchel, 2013; but see Prevost, McCabe, Jessup, Bossaerts & O'Doherty, 2011, for a null finding), hippocampus (Ploghaus et al., 2000;Vanni-Mercier, Mauguiere, Isnard & Dreher, 2009), substantia nigra (D'Ardenne, Lohrenz, Bartley & Montague, 2013;Dreher, Kohn & Berman, 2006), cingulate”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Boll et al., 2013
• Not checked yetcites Ploghaus et al., 2000
• Not checked yetcites D'Ardenne et al., 2013

In the paper

“In part it seems likely to be the consequence of deliberate and controlled (top-down) attention toward cues deemed important as a consequence of their history.”

In the paper

“More generally, the data reviewed here support the idea that attention can be learned just as other behavioural responses are learned.”

In the paper

“Our conclusion is that current neuroscientific evidence for the uncertainty principle-specifically that attention goes to cues about which people are uncertain-is not at all strong.”

In the paper

“These studies indicate that the attentional bias towards previously predictive stimuli is multiply determined.”

In the paper

“However, there is also evidence that predictiveness produces an attentional bias that is automatic and outside of participants' control.”

In the paper

“This pattern of findings has motivated the development of hybrid theories of attentional learning, which attempt (in various ways) to reconcile and combine both the predictiveness and uncertainty principles”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites George & Pearce, 2012
• Not checked yetcites Le Pelley, 2004, 2010
• Not checked yetcites Pearce, George & Redhead, 1998

In the paper

“While this issue has received less attention, some fMRI studies have shown that amygdala activity elicited by presentation of a cue correlates with the size of uPEs previously experienced in relation to that cue”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Aron et al., 2004
• Not checked yetcites Boll et al., 2013
• Not checked yetcites Li, Schiller, Schoenbaum, Phelps & Daw, 2011

In the paper

“Finally, some experimental tests of the qualitative predictions of the Pearce-Hall model have shown evidence for the uncertainty principle.”

In the paper

“Similar results have been reported elsewhere (Bai, Katahira & Ohira, 2014;Behrens et al., 2007;Cavanagh, 2015;Li et al., 2011)”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Bai, Katahira & Ohira, 2014
• Not checked yetcites Behrens et al., 2007
• Not checked yetcites Cavanagh, 2015

In the paper

“Griffiths et al. (2011) found some evidence that surprising outcomes increase attention to the cues that preceded them.”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Griffiths et al., 2011

In the paper

“In this unrewarded control condition, no significant difference in response time was observed during the test phase between trials featuring a distractor in a colour that had been a target during training (red or green) versus no-distractor trials.”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Anderson et al. (2011b)
• Not checked yetcites Qi et al., 2013
• Not checked yetcites Wang et al., 2013

In the paper

“However, there are also a handful of studies that have used procedures in which the outcome cannot be predicted perfectly, but which have yielded evidence consistent with the predictiveness principle (and counter to the uncertainty principle: Kattner, 2015; Le Pelley, Turnbull, et al., 2010;Livesey et al., 2011).”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Kattner, 2015
• Not checked yetcites Le Pelley, Turnbull, et al., 2010
• Not checked yetcites Livesey et al., 2011

In the paper

“Regardless of which noise was used, this study showed the greatest attentional bias to cue A (predictive of outcome), followed by B (nonpredictive), and then cue C (predictive of no outcome).”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Austin and Duka (2010)

In the paper

“Indeed, the notion of overall uncertainty cannot be the whole story.”

In the paper

“There is strong evidence for a top-down, deliberate, value-based attentional bias when the cues in question are task-relevant.”

In the paper

“Several subsequent studies have replicated the finding of slower responses during the test phase on high-value distractor trials compared to nodistractor trials”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Anderson, Faulkner, Rilee, Yantis & Marvel, 2013
• Not checked yetcites Anderson, Laurent & Yantis, 2013, 2014
• Not checked yetcites Anderson, Leal, Hall, Yassa & Yantis, 2014

In the paper

“We have seen that there is strong evidence supporting the operation of the predictiveness principle in humansthe idea that more attention will be paid to cues that are more accurate predictors of subsequent events.”

In the paper

“It is now well established that the learned value of stimuli influences performance on tasks in which they are task-relevant.”

In the paper

“Several studies with humans show that blocking treatment results in a reduction to attention to the blocked cue B relative to the control cue D.”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Beesley & Le Pelley, 2011
• Not checked yetcites Griffiths & Le Pelley, 2009
• Not checked yetcites Kruschke & Blair, 2000

In the paper

“Over the course of training, participants became faster to respond to targets rendered in the high-reward colour than the low-reward colour.”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Stormer et al. (2014)

In the paper

“While Stormer et al.'s findings demonstrate an influence of learned value on attention, they do not allow us to decide between these alternative accounts of that influence.”

In the paper

“Notably, overt attention to all cues (both predictive and nonpredictive) was greater in the uncertain condition than the certain condition; that is, participants spent a greater proportion of each trial looking at the cues in the uncertain condition.”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Beesley et al. (2015)

In the paper

“Similarly, in Griffiths et al.'s (2011) negative transfer study, the size of the outcome paired with the target cue changed in an unpredictable way over the course of training.”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Griffiths et al. (2011)

In the paper

“This result is quite different from the B > A = C pattern observed by Hogarth et al.”

In the paper

“However, an emerging body of research suggests this is not the whole story; that attention to cues is also influenced by the motivational value of the outcome events they are paired withwhat we term the learned value of the stimuli.”

In the paper

“There is also some evidence (certainly less abundant and arguably less compelling) in support of the uncertainty principle.”

In the paper

“In the majority of studies that have found evidence of exploitation, the outcome that occurred on every trial was perfectly predicted by the cues that were presented.”

In the paper

“In two experiments, Hogarth et al. found that participants spent longer looking at the unique cue than the common cue on all three types of compound trial.”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Hogarth et al. (2008)

In the paper

“It is, therefore, perhaps premature to apply to humans the kinds of hybrid models of attentional learning developed in the context of animal learning.”

In the paper

“This finding suggests that participants' prior experience with the high-value target colour during the training phase made it more likely to distract attention away from the target in the test phase.”

In the paper

“The implication is that the high-value distractor colour produced automatic and involuntary capture of attention.”

In the paper

“However, in a further study using positively-valenced outcomes (cigarettes; participants were smokers), Austin and Duka (2012) again found the A > B > C pattern that conflicts with Pearce-Hall.”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Austin and Duka (2012)

In the paper

“This null result suggests that, in this procedure, selection history alone does not produce capture by former targets.”

In the paper

“Following this, we describe evidence from studies using task-irrelevant cues, which shows that learned value can also result in bottom-up, automatic attentional capture.”

In the paper

“Under these circumstances, when perfect performance is possible, there seems little value in exploring the cues for new sources of informationinstead it makes sense to exploit the predictive relationships that are already known.”

In the paper

“However, this bias in gaze was greater on BX trials than on AX and CX trials.”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Hogarth et al. (2008)

In the paper

“Under these circumstances of uncertainty, it makes sense to explore the cues for additional pieces of information that may allow more accurate predictions to be made in future.”

In the paper

“In this regard it is notable that studies finding evidence of attentional exploration have indeed tended to use much simpler designs than studies finding evidence of attentional exploitation.”

In the paper

“In contrast, in the study by Hogarth et al. (2008), the outcome on BX trials was unpredictable: the noise occurred on a random half of BX trials.”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Hogarth et al. (2008)

In the paper

“This finding follows from the predictiveness principle because, during the extinction phase, the restaurant is a better predictor of 'no illness' than is steak (since steak has a strong pre-trained association with illness).”

In the paper

“Less is learned about the contingency between cue B and the outcome than for a control cue D, trained in a CD compound where C was not previously paired with the outcome.”

In the paper

“Critically, people were slower to respond to the shape-singleton target if the display contained a distractor shape in the high-value colour (known as high-value distractor trials) than if neither of the reward-related colours was present in the display (no-distractor trials: note, the comparison here does not include lowvalue distractor trials, we return to this issue later).”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Anderson et al. (2011b)

In the paper

“So once participants had learned the various cueoutcome relationships, they could make a correct prediction on every trial, and hence these designs have zero uncertainty (e.g., Bonardi et al., 2005;Eimas, 1966;Kruschke, 1996;Le Pelley & McLaren, 2003;Livesey & McLaren, 2007;Lochmann & Wills, 2003;Whitney & White, 1993).”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Bonardi et al., 2005
• Not checked yetcites Eimas, 1966
• Not checked yetcites Kruschke, 1996

In the paper

“Austin and Duka did report eye gaze data consistent with the Pearce-Hall model, but only when positively-valenced outcomes (monetary gains) were used.”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Austin and Duka (2010)

In the paper

“Other studies that are consistent with both the predictiveness and uncertainty principles have examined how attention to contexts varies as a function of the information learned in them (Abad, Ramos-Alvarez & Rosas, 2009;Callejas-Aguilera & Rosas, 2010;Gawronski, Rydell, Vervliet & De Houwer, 2010;Leon, Abad & Rosas, 2011;Nelson, Lamoureux & Leon, 2013;Rosas & Callejas-Aguilera, 2006).”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Abad, Ramos-Alvarez & Rosas, 2009
• Not checked yetcites Callejas-Aguilera & Rosas, 2010
• Not checked yetcites Gawronski, Rydell, Vervliet & De Houwer, 2010

In the paper

“Two studies have found greater attentional capture by stimuli paired with large loss of money relative to stimuli paired with small (or no) loss (Wang et al., 2013;Wentura et al., 2014).”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Wang et al., 2013
• Not checked yetcites Wentura et al., 2014

In the paper

“This finding further demonstrates that people are unable to use controlled processes to overcome the effect, even when explicitly motivated to do so.”

In the paper

“Counterproductive VMAC by task-irrelevant stimuli persists over extended training; even with extensive experience, participants did not come to show an adaptive pattern wherein they suppressed attention to the high-value distractor, which would have increased their payoff (Le Pelley et al., 2015).”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Le Pelley et al., 2015

In the paper

“These findings suggest the crucial determinant of VMAC is the motivational significance of the predicted outcome (large rewards and large punishments are more arousing events than are small rewards/punishments) rather than the valence of that outcome”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Kahnt, Park, Haynes & Tobler, 2014

In the paper

“On test, when presented with compound BC participants typically report expecting the rare outcome (predicted by C).”

In the paper

“During the test phase, participants were more likely to make saccades towards a high-value distractor than a low-value distractor, even though these stimuli were task-irrelevant.”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Theeuwes and Belopolsky (2012)

In the paper

“A handful of studies have shown that nonspatial perceptual processing of taskirrelevant stimuli is also influenced by learned value; either via monetary reward (Della Libera & Chelazzi, 2009;Della Libera, Perlato & Chelazzi, 2011;Failing & Theeuwes, 2015), or punishment (an aversive loud noise : Smith, Most, Newsome & Zald, 2006).”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Della Libera & Chelazzi, 2009
• Not checked yetcites Della Libera, Perlato & Chelazzi, 2011
• Not checked yetcites Failing & Theeuwes, 2015

In the paper

“In contrast, the Pearce-Hall model, and the uncertainty principle on which it is based, did not receive strong support from the data.”

In the paper

“Earlier in the article, we reviewed the substantial evidence in support of the predictiveness principlestimuli that are more predictive of outcomes (i.e., that provide more information regarding which outcome will occur) tend to receive more attention than stimuli that are less predictive.”

In the paper

“(2) VMAC may be long-lived, lasting for months after the initial training phase (Anderson & Yantis, 2013).”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Anderson & Yantis, 2013

In the paper

“In the terminology of conditioning research, these data suggest that VMAC reflects the operation of a Pavlovian, rather than instrumental, learning process.”

In the paper

“The inverse base-rate effect (IBRE: Medin & Edelson, 1988), and the analogous highlighting effect (Collins, Percy, Smith & Kruschke, 2011;Dennis & Kruschke, 1998;Kruschke, 1996aKruschke, , 2009;;Kruschke et al., 2005;Sewell & Lewandowsky, 2012), seem to conflict with the idea that attention can simply be equated with associative strength.”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Medin & Edelson, 1988
• Not checked yetcites Collins, Percy, Smith & Kruschke, 2011
• Not checked yetcites Kruschke et al., 2005

In the paper

“The implication is that the influence of learned value on attentional capture (i.e., VMAC) is a function of the signal-value of stimuli, rather than their response-value.”

In the paper

“The effect persists when participants are explicitly informed that looking at the distractor results in omission of reward, and are told every time this omission occurs (Pearson et al., 2015).”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Pearson et al., 2015

In the paper

“These studies thus demonstrate conclusively that prior learning about the value of an outcome that is associated with a stimulus produces a change in the extent to which that stimulus will automatically capture attention in the future.”

In the paper

“These experiments further suggest that: (1) High-value distractors are more likely to capture attention than low-value distractors even when the location of the target is known in advance (Wang et al., 2014: see also Munneke, Hoppenbrouwers & Theeuwes, 2015).”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Wang et al., 2014
• Not checked yetcites Munneke, Hoppenbrouwers & Theeuwes, 2015

In the paper

“Studies of value-modulated attentional capture (VMAC) show that stimuli that predict high-value outcomes (positively or negatively valenced) become more likely to capture our attention (both spatially and nonspatially) in an automatic, bottom-up fashion.”

In the paper

“However, this pattern runs against the findings of Le Pelley et al. (2015), who found that the effect of learned value showed no sign of decreasing over extended training, and if anything tended to increase as training continued.”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Le Pelley et al., 2015

In the paper

“This more stringent, high-versus-low difference has been reported in some recent studies.5”

In the paper

“Wang et al. also reported greater capture by a stimulus paired with painful shock than by a stimulus that was never paired with shock”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Van Damme, Crombez, Hermans, Koster & Eccleston, 2006
• Not checked yetcites Field, 2006

In the paper

“In the previous section, we saw that there is now abundant evidence demonstrating that stimuli associated with high-value outcomes receive greater attention than those associated with low-value outcomes.”

In the paper

“Crucially, if the response to (say) a red target on trial T is highly rewarded, the effect of inter-trial priming on trial T+1 is magnified relative to the case where the response to that same red target on trial T received low reward.”

In the paper

“The effect of these 'long-term' associations then lingered to influence attention in a test phase which occurred minutes (e.g., Anderson et al., 2011b), days (e.g., Della Libera & Chelazzi, 2009), or months (e.g., Anderson & Yantis, 2013) later.”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Anderson et al., 2011b
• Not checked yetcites Della Libera & Chelazzi, 2009
• Not checked yetcites Anderson & Yantis, 2013

In the paper

“These findings show that reward learning can modulate attentional capture by stimuli even when responding to (or orienting attention towards) those stimuli has never been rewarded.”

In the paper

“(3) Learned value can produce automatic capture of eye movements (known as oculomotor capture).”

In the paper

“This finding of counterproductive VMAC by task-irrelevant stimuli has proven robust (Failing, Nissens, Pearson, Le Pelley & Theeuwes, 2015;Pearson, Donkin, Tran, Most & Le Pelley, 2015: for similar findings from related procedures, see also Bucker, Belopolsky & Theeuwes, 2015;Buschschulte et al. 2014;Hopf et al. 2015;Mine & Saiki, 2015).”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Failing, Nissens, Pearson, Le Pelley & Theeuwes, 2015
• Not checked yetcites Pearson, Donkin, Tran, Most & Le Pelley, 2015
• Not checked yetcites Bucker, Belopolsky & Theeuwes, 2015

In the paper

“(4) VMAC is not restricted to learning about reward.”

In the paper

“These studies show that stimuli previously paired with high-value outcomes (compared to low-value outcomes) interfere more strongly with processing of-and responding to-a target when they are presented in the same location as that target; either sequentially (Failing & Theeuwes, 2015; Smith et al., 2006), 7 or simultaneously (Della Libera & Chelazzi, 2009;Della Libera et al., 2011;Kelly & Forsyth,”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Failing & Theeuwes, 2015
• Not checked yetcites Smith et al., 2006
• Not checked yetcites Della Libera & Chelazzi, 2009

In the paper

“In turn, studies of associability show that the resulting attentional biases can themselves modulate the rate of future learning about the stimuli involved (predictive cues are subsequently learned about faster), such that the attention-learning relationship is truly interactive.”

In the paper

“In contrast, the attentional advantage for C over B emerges more naturally from an account in which attention is based on a comparison of the relative predictiveness of different cues presented together on a trial, as in Mackintosh's (1975) original model (Equation [2]).”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Mackintosh, 1975

In the paper

“Prevost et al. (2011) found evidence favouring a fixed rate model for learning which of two responses to make under conditions of uncertainty”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Prevost et al. (2011)

In the paper

“We propose that the effects of learned predictiveness and learned value are unlikely to be the consequence of entirely separate processes or systems.”

In the paper

“but a Pearce-Hall model for learning whether a cue indicated the current trial would produce an appetitive, aversive or neutral outcome.”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Prevost et al. (2011)

In the paper

“participants were better at detecting these predictive target letters than other, nonpredictive target letters.”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites [2009]

In the paper

“This is exactly what is observed: for example, people who are substance-use dependent show particular difficulty in processing a nonsalient target stimulus in the presence of a drug-related distractor stimulus (for reviews, see Field & Cox, 2008;Field, Munafo & Franken, 2009).”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Field & Cox, 2008
• Not checked yetcites Field, Munafo & Franken, 2009

In the paper

“Griffiths et al.'s demonstration of release from negative transfer lends unique support to the Pearce-Hall model.”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Griffiths et al.

In the paper

“or have found a negative correlation between uPEs and associability (D'Ardenne et al., 2013)”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites D'Ardenne et al., 2013

In the paper

“This finding suggests that individual differences in susceptibility to substance abuse disorders may reflect, in part, differences in the level of a more general predisposition to develop attentional biases towards reward-related stimuli.”

In the paper

“That is, when a participant has learned that a cue is predictive of a significant outcome (perhaps one of high value) they then pay attention to that cue in an automatic and involuntary manner.”

In the paper

“In particular, many drugs of abuse produce potent neural reward signals (Dayan, 2009;Hyman, 2005;Robinson & Berridge, 2001).”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Dayan, 2009
• Not checked yetcites Hyman, 2005
• Not checked yetcites Robinson & Berridge, 2001

In the paper

“It would appear that what has been uncovered is a form of attentional bias-derived attention-that does not fit the standard goal-directed/stimulus-driven distinction.”

In the paper

“These findings in humans stand in contrast to the literature on attentional learning in nonhuman animals, in which there have been many reports of data consistent with the uncertainty principle (see Pearce & Mackintosh, 2010, for a review; see Holland & Maddux, 2010, for a detailed examination of the neural basis of uncertainty-related effects in animals).”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Pearce & Mackintosh, 2010
• Not checked yetcites Holland & Maddux, 2010

In the paper

“this will result in reduced attention (α) to these blocked cues by Equation [3], as observed empirically”

In the paper

“negative transfer is not itself a unique prediction of the Pearce-Hall model.”

In the paper

“the model anticipates that blocked cues will gain less associative strength than control cues”

In the paper

“Consistent with this idea, a recent large-scale study of alcohol-dependent individuals has shown that a cognitive re-training procedure can indeed reduce relapse rates at one year by up to 10% (Eberl et al., 2013; see also Fadardi & Cox, 2009;Schoenmakers et al., 2010).”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Eberl et al., 2013
• Not checked yetcites Fadardi & Cox, 2009
• Not checked yetcites Schoenmakers et al., 2010

In the paper

“the difference in reward history of the different categories during the test phase is confounded with a difference in their selection history: high-value stimuli were chosen more frequently as targets during the preceding training phase”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Failing and Theeuwes (2015)

In the paper

“allows the model to account for cue competition effects such as overshadowing and blocking (see Le Pelley, 2004, for detailed discussion)”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Le Pelley, 2004

In the paper

“While the predictiveness principle and the uncertainty principle are seemingly in opposition, they can be reconciled in hybrid attentional models (George & Pearce, 2012;Le Pelley, 2004, 2010;Pearce & Mackintosh, 2010).”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites George & Pearce, 2012
• Not checked yetcites Le Pelley, 2004, 2010
• Not checked yetcites Pearce & Mackintosh, 2010

In the paper

“Moreover, the extent of the attentional bias towards drug-related stimuli in recovering addicts is known to predict relapse (Cox, Hogan, Kristian & Race, 2002;Marissen et al., 2006;Waters et al., 2003).”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Cox, Hogan, Kristian & Race, 2002
• Not checked yetcites Marissen et al., 2006
• Not checked yetcites Waters et al., 2003

In the paper

“This is exactly what was observed.”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Griffiths et al.

In the paper

“This expression for changes in associative strength, which is the same as that of the well-known model by Rescorla and Wagner (1972)”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Rescorla and Wagner (1972)

In the paper

“other studies have found evidence favouring a fixed rate model over a Pearce-Hall type model (Payzan-LeNestour, Dunne, Bossaerts & O'Doherty, 2013)”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Payzan-LeNestour, Dunne, Bossaerts & O'Doherty, 2013

In the paper

“We saw earlier that the influence of reward learning on attention reflects (at least in part) an automatic, involuntary process that is cognitively impenetrable.”

In the paper

“this reduced α will also slow further learning about these blocked cues based on the equation for ΔVA above”

In the paper

“So this simpler model anticipates a persistent influence of learned value on attention.”