Abstract
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.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Arcediano, F., Escobar, M., &Miller, R. R. (2004). Is stimulus competition an acquisition deficit or a performance deficit?Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,11, 1105–1110.
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, 1463–1481.
Feldman, J. M. (1975). Blocking as a function of added cue intensity.Animal Learning & Behavior,3, 98–102.
Ghirlanda, S. (2005). Retrospective revaluation as simple associative learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,31, 107–111.
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, 145–158.
Hinton, G. E. (1989). Connectionist learning procedures.Artificial Intelligence,40, 185–234.
Kamin, L. J. (1968). “Attention-like” processes in classical conditioning. In M. R. Jones (Ed.),Miami Symposium on the Prediction of Behavior: Aversive stimulation (pp. 9–33). Coral Gables, FL: University of Miami Press.
Kamin, L. J. (1969). Predictability, surprise, attention, and conditioning. In B. A. Campbell & R. M. Church (Eds.),Punishment and aversive behavior (pp. 279–296). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
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, 188–202.
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. 950–957). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
Kruschke, J. K. (1992). ALCOVE: An exemplar-based connectionist model of category learning.Psychological Review,99, 22–44.
Kruschke, J. K. (2001a). The inverse base-rate effect is not explained by eliminative inference.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,27, 1385–1400.
Kruschke, J. K. (2001b). Toward a unified model of attention in associative learning.Journal of Mathematical Psychology,45, 812–863.
Kruschke, J. K. (2005). Learning involves attention. In G. Houghton (Ed.),Connectionist models in cognitive psychology (pp. 113–140). Hove, U.K.: Psychology Press.
Kruschke, J. K., &Blair, N. J. (2000). Blocking and backward blocking involve learned inattention.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,7, 636–645.
Kruschke, J. K., &Johansen, M. K. (1999). A model of probabilistic category learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,25, 1083–1119.
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, 830–845.
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, 193–243.Luce, R. D. (1959).Individual choice behavior. New York: Wiley.
Mackintosh, N. J. (1975). A theory of attention: Variations in the associability of stimuli with reinforcement.Psychological Review,82, 276–298.
Markman, A. B. (1989). LMS rules and the inverse base-rate effect: Comment on Gluck and Bower (1988).Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,118, 417–421.
McLaren, I. P. L., &Mackintosh, N. J. (2000). An elemental model of associative learning: I. Latent inhibition and perceptual learning.Animal Learning & Behavior,28, 211–246.
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. 64–99). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Trabasso, T., &Bower, G. H. (1968).Attention in learning: Theory and research. New York: Wiley.
Van Hamme, L. J., &Wasserman, E. A. (1994). Cue competition in causality judgments: The role of nonpresentation of compound stimulus elements.Learning & Motivation,25, 127–151.
Wagner, A. R., Logan, F. A., Haberlandt, K., &Price, T. (1968). Stimulus selection in animal discrimination learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology,76, 171–180.
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, 121–138.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This research was supported in part by National Science Foundation Grant BCS-9910720. We thank Patrick Hill, Blake Hulet, Angela Prather, Ruth Ann Weaver, Jimmy Burroughs, Kendra Gibbs, and Daniel Spechar for assistance administering the experiment. Correspondence can be addressed to J. K. Kruschke,
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Denton, S.E., Kruschke, J.K. Attention and salience in associative blocking. Learning & Behavior 34, 285–304 (2006). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192884
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192884