Cited by 85Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesDecision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsMemory Processes and Influences

Uncertainty and predictiveness determine attention to cues during human associative learning

Beesley, Tom, Nguyen, Katherine P., Pearson, Daniel, Le Pelley, Mike E.·2015·Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

Abstract

Prior research has suggested that attention is determined by exploiting what is known about the most valid predictors of outcomes and exploring those stimuli that are associated with the greatest degree of uncertainty about subsequent events. Previous studies of human contingency learning have revealed evidence for one or other of these processes, but differences in the designs and procedures of these studies make it difficult to pinpoint the crucial determinant of whether attentional exploitation or exploration will dominate. Here we present two studies in which we systematically manipulated both the predictiveness of cues and uncertainty regarding the outcomes with which they were associated. This allowed us to demonstrate, for the first time, evidence of both attentional exploration and exploitation within the same experiment. Moreover, while the effect of predictiveness persisted to influence the rate of novel learning about the same cues in a second stage, the effect of uncertainty did not. This suggests that attentional exploration is more sensitive to a change of context than is exploitation. The pattern of data is simulated with a hybrid attentional model.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/17470218.2015.1009919

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • When a behavior is in habit mode, it exploits the tried and true; when it is in action mode, it can explore new opportunities or connections.

    “When a behavior is in habit mode, it exploits the tried and true; when it is in action mode, it can presumably explore new opportunities or connections (cf. Beeseley et al., 2015)”

    From Context, attention, and the switch between habit and goal-direction in behavior (2021) · cites this paper as Beeseley et al., 2015

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Beesley, T., Nguyen, K. P., Pearson, D., & Le Pelley, M. E.
Affiliations
  • UNSW Sydney (AU)
  • School of Psychology, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Corresponding author
Beesley, Tom
Venue
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology
Published
2015-11
Volume
68
Issue
11
Pages
2175-2199
ISSN
  • 0033-555X (ISSN-L)
  • 1747-0218
  • 1747-0226
OpenAlex
W2009002319
Cited by
85
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 1
FWCI
4.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Australian Research Council (DP140103268)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
Keywords
contingency learning, associative learning, outcome uncertainty, attentional bias, context sensitivity, attentional models
MeSH terms
Association Learning, Attention, Choice Behavior, Cues, Fixation, Ocular, Humans, Photic Stimulation, Uncertainty

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