Cited by 97Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesMultisensory perception and integrationMemory and Neural Mechanisms

Attention and expectation in human predictive learning: The role of uncertainty

Open access
Hogarth, Lee, Dickinson, Anthony, Austin, Alison, Brown, Craig, Duka, Theodora·2008·Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

Abstract

Three localized, visual pattern stimuli were trained as predictive signals of auditory outcomes. One signal partially predicted an aversive noise in Experiment 1 and a neutral tone in Experiment 2, whereas the other signals consistently predicted either the occurrence or absence of the noise. The expectation of the noise was measured during each signal presentation, and only participants for whom this expectation demonstrated contingency knowledge showed differential attention to the signals. Importantly, when attention was measured by visual fixations, the contingency-aware group attended more to the partially predictive signal than to the consistent predictors in both experiments. This profile of visual attention supports the Pearce and Hall (1980) theory of the role of attention in associative learning.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/17470210701643439

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • A visual cue with an uncertain 50% relation to an outcome maintains orienting behavior, whereas a cue with a perfect 100% relation to an outcome does not.

    “The results of experiments in rats (e.g., Kaye & Pearce, 1984; Wilson et al., 1992) and humans (Hogarth et al., 2008) suggest that a visual cue that has an uncertain (50%) relation to an outcome maintains orienting behavior, whereas a cue that has a perfect (100%) relation to an outcome does not.”

    From Context, attention, and the switch between habit and goal-direction in behavior (2021) · cites this paper as Hogarth et al., 2008

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 24 · Cited by 97

Authors
Hogarth, L., Dickinson, A., Austin, A., Brown, C., & Duka, T.
Affiliations
  • University of Nottingham (GB)
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • University of Sussex (GB)
Corresponding author
  • Hogarth, Lee
  • Duka, Theodora
Venue
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology
Published
2008-11
Volume
61
Issue
11
Pages
1658-1668
ISSN
  • 0033-555X (ISSN-L)
  • 1747-0218
  • 1747-0226
OpenAlex
W2000160140
Cited by
97
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 5
FWCI
3.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBS/B/09384)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Multisensory perception and integration
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
Keywords
predictive learning, attention, expectations, uncertainty, associative learning, visual fixation
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Attention, Awareness, Discrimination Learning, Female, Humans, Male, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Photic Stimulation, Reaction Time, Time Factors, Visual Acuity, Intention, Uncertainty, Young Adult

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.

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