Paula Balea, Sara Molinero, Miguel A Vadillo, David Luque
{"title":"选择历史在习得预测效应中的作用。","authors":"Paula Balea, Sara Molinero, Miguel A Vadillo, David Luque","doi":"10.1037/xhp0001240","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Previous research has shown that cues that are good predictors of relevant outcomes receive more attention than nonpredictive cues. This attentional bias is thought to stem from the different predictive value of cues. However, because successful performance requires more attention to predictive cues, the bias may be a lingering effect of previous attention to cues (i.e., a selection history effect) instead. Two experiments assessed the contribution of predictive value and selection history to the bias produced by learned predictiveness. In a first task, participants responded to pairs of cues, only one of which predicted the correct response. A second task was superficially very similar, but the correct response was determined randomly on each trial and participants responded based on some physical characteristic of a target stimulus in each compound. Hence, in this latter task, participants had to pay more attention to the target stimuli, but these stimuli were not consistently associated with a specific response. Results revealed no differences in the attentional bias toward the relevant stimuli in the two tasks, suggesting that the bias induced by learned predictiveness is a consequence of deploying more attention to predictive stimuli during training. Thus, predictiveness may not bias attention by itself, adding nothing over and above the effect expected by selection history. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The role of selection history in the learned predictiveness effect.\",\"authors\":\"Paula Balea, Sara Molinero, Miguel A Vadillo, David Luque\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/xhp0001240\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Previous research has shown that cues that are good predictors of relevant outcomes receive more attention than nonpredictive cues. This attentional bias is thought to stem from the different predictive value of cues. However, because successful performance requires more attention to predictive cues, the bias may be a lingering effect of previous attention to cues (i.e., a selection history effect) instead. Two experiments assessed the contribution of predictive value and selection history to the bias produced by learned predictiveness. In a first task, participants responded to pairs of cues, only one of which predicted the correct response. A second task was superficially very similar, but the correct response was determined randomly on each trial and participants responded based on some physical characteristic of a target stimulus in each compound. Hence, in this latter task, participants had to pay more attention to the target stimuli, but these stimuli were not consistently associated with a specific response. Results revealed no differences in the attentional bias toward the relevant stimuli in the two tasks, suggesting that the bias induced by learned predictiveness is a consequence of deploying more attention to predictive stimuli during training. Thus, predictiveness may not bias attention by itself, adding nothing over and above the effect expected by selection history. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":2,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0001240\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/8/22 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0001240","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
以往的研究表明,能够很好预测相关结果的线索会比非预测性线索受到更多关注。这种注意偏差被认为源于线索的不同预测价值。然而,由于成功的表现需要对预测性线索给予更多的注意,这种偏差可能是以前对线索的注意所产生的一种挥之不去的影响(即选择历史效应)。有两个实验评估了预测价值和选择历史对学习预测性产生的偏差的贡献。在第一个任务中,参与者对成对的线索做出反应,其中只有一个线索能预测出正确的反应。第二项任务从表面上看非常相似,但正确的反应是在每次试验中随机决定的,而参与者是根据每个化合物中目标刺激的某些物理特征做出反应的。因此,在后一项任务中,参与者必须更加关注目标刺激物,但这些刺激物并不总是与特定的反应相关联。结果显示,在这两项任务中,对相关刺激的注意偏向没有差异,这表明学习预测性所引起的偏向是在训练过程中对预测性刺激投入更多注意力的结果。因此,预测性本身可能不会使注意力产生偏向,不会在选择史预期的效果之外增加任何效果。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, 版权所有)。
The role of selection history in the learned predictiveness effect.
Previous research has shown that cues that are good predictors of relevant outcomes receive more attention than nonpredictive cues. This attentional bias is thought to stem from the different predictive value of cues. However, because successful performance requires more attention to predictive cues, the bias may be a lingering effect of previous attention to cues (i.e., a selection history effect) instead. Two experiments assessed the contribution of predictive value and selection history to the bias produced by learned predictiveness. In a first task, participants responded to pairs of cues, only one of which predicted the correct response. A second task was superficially very similar, but the correct response was determined randomly on each trial and participants responded based on some physical characteristic of a target stimulus in each compound. Hence, in this latter task, participants had to pay more attention to the target stimuli, but these stimuli were not consistently associated with a specific response. Results revealed no differences in the attentional bias toward the relevant stimuli in the two tasks, suggesting that the bias induced by learned predictiveness is a consequence of deploying more attention to predictive stimuli during training. Thus, predictiveness may not bias attention by itself, adding nothing over and above the effect expected by selection history. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).