Attention and salience in associative blocking
详细信息 查看全文
- 作者：Stephen E. Denton (1)
John K. Kruschke (1) - 刊名：Learning & Behavior
- 出版年：2006
- 出版时间：August 2006
- 年：2006
- 卷：34
- 期：3
- 页码：285-304
- 全文大小：455KB
- 参考文献：1. Arcediano, F., Escobar, M. , &Miller, R. R. (2004). Is stimulus competition an acquisition deficit or a performance deficit? / Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,11, 1105鈥?110. CrossRef
2. Edgell, S. E., Castellan, N. J. , Jr.,Roe, R. M., Barnes, J. M., Ng, P. C., Bright, R. D. , et al. (1996). Irrelevant information in probabilistic categorization. / Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,22, 1463鈥?481. CrossRef
3. Feldman, J. M. (1975). Blocking as a function of added cue intensity. / Animal Learning & Behavior,3, 98鈥?02. CrossRef
4. Ghirlanda, S. (2005). Retrospective revaluation as simple associative learning. / Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,31, 107鈥?11. CrossRef
5. Hall, G., Mackintosh, N. J., Goodall, G. , &dal Martello, M. (1977). Loss of control by a less valid or by a less salient stimulus compounded with a better predictor of reinforcement. / Learning & Motivation,8, 145鈥?58. CrossRef
6. Hinton, G. E. (1989). Connectionist learning procedures. / Artificial Intelligence,40, 185鈥?34. CrossRef
7. Kamin, L. J. (1968). 鈥淎ttention-like鈥?processes in classical conditioning. In M. R. Jones (Ed.), / Miami Symposium on the Prediction of Behavior: Aversive stimulation (pp. 9鈥?3). Coral Gables, FL: University of Miami Press.
8. Kamin, L. J. (1969). Predictability, surprise, attention, and conditioning. In B. A. Campbell & R. M. Church (Eds.), / Punishment and aversive behavior (pp. 279鈥?96). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
9. Klein, S. B., Weston, D., McGee-Davis, T. , &Cohen, L. (1984). The relative contributions of predictiveness and salience in flavor aversion learning. / Learning & Motivation,15, 188鈥?02. CrossRef
10. Krogh, A. , &Hertz, J. A. (1992). A simple weight decay can improve generalization. In J. E. Moody, S. J. Hanson, & R. P. Lippmann (Eds.), / Advances in neural information processing systems (Vol. 4, pp. 950鈥?57). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
11. Kruschke, J. K. (1992). ALCOVE: An exemplar-based connectionist model of category learning. / Psychological Review,99, 22鈥?4. CrossRef
12. Kruschke, J. K. (2001a). The inverse base-rate effect is not explained by eliminative inference. / Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,27, 1385鈥?400. CrossRef
13. Kruschke, J. K. (2001b). Toward a unified model of attention in associative learning. / Journal of Mathematical Psychology,45, 812鈥?63. CrossRef
14. Kruschke, J. K. (2005). Learning involves attention. In G. Houghton (Ed.), / Connectionist models in cognitive psychology (pp. 113鈥?40). Hove, U.K.: Psychology Press.
15. Kruschke, J. K. , &Blair, N. J. (2000). Blocking and backward blocking involve learned inattention. / Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,7, 636鈥?45. CrossRef
16. Kruschke, J. K. , &Johansen, M. K. (1999). A model of probabilistic category learning. / Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,25, 1083鈥?119. CrossRef
17. Kruschke, J. K., Kappenman, E. S. , &Hetrick, W. P. (2005). Eye gaze and individual differences consistent with learned attention in associative blocking and highlighting. / Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,31, 830鈥?45. CrossRef
18. Le Pelley, M. E. (2004). The role of associative history in models of associative learning: A selective review and a hybrid model. / Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,57B, 193鈥?43.Luce, R. D. (1959). / Individual choice behavior. New York: Wiley.
19. Mackintosh, N. J. (1975). A theory of attention: Variations in the associability of stimuli with reinforcement. / Psychological Review,82, 276鈥?98. CrossRef
20. Markman, A. B. (1989). LMS rules and the inverse base-rate effect: Comment on Gluck and Bower (1988). / Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,118, 417鈥?21. CrossRef
21. McLaren, I. P. L. , &Mackintosh, N. J. (2000). An elemental model of associative learning: I. Latent inhibition and perceptual learning. / Animal Learning & Behavior,28, 211鈥?46. CrossRef
22. Rescorla, R. A. , &Wagner, A. R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. In A. H. Black & W. F. Prokasy (Eds.), / Classical conditioning II: Current research and theory (pp. 64鈥?9). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
23. Trabasso, T. , &Bower, G. H. (1968). / Attention in learning: Theory and research. New York: Wiley.
24. Van Hamme, L. J. , &Wasserman, E. A. (1994). Cue competition in causality judgments: The role of nonpresentation of compound stimulus elements. / Learning & Motivation,25, 127鈥?51. CrossRef
25. Wagner, A. R., Logan, F. A., Haberlandt, K. , &Price, T. (1968). Stimulus selection in animal discrimination learning. / Journal of Experimental Psychology,76, 171鈥?80. CrossRef
26. Wasserman, E. A. , &Berglan, L. R. (1998). Backward blocking and recovery from overshadowing in human causal judgement: The role of within-compound associations. / Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,51B, 121鈥?38. - 作者单位：Stephen E. Denton (1)
John K. Kruschke (1)
1. Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Indiana University, 1101 E. 10th St., 47405-7007, Bloomington, IN - ISSN：1543-4508
文摘
The associative learning effect called blocking has previously been found in many cue-competition paradigms where all cues are of equal salience. Previous research by Hall, Mackintosh, Goodall, and dal Martello (1977) found that, in animals, salient cues were less likely to be blocked. Crucially, they also found that when the to-be-blocked cue was highly salient, the blocking cue would lose some control over responding. The present article extends these findings to humans and suggests that shifts in attention can explain the apparent loss of control by the previously learned cue. A connectionist model that implements attentional learning is shown to fit the main trends in the data. Model comparisons suggest that mere forgetting, implemented as weight decay, cannot explain the results.