Task-irrelevant learning occurs only when the irrelevant feature is weak

The role of attention in perceptual learning has been controversial. Numerous studies have reported that learning does not occur on stimulus features that are irrelevant to a subject's task [1,2] and have concluded that focused attention on a feature is necessary for a feature to be learned. In contrast, another line of studies has shown that perceptual learning occurs even on task-irrelevant features that are subthreshold, and concluded that attention on a feature is not required to learn that feature [3-5]. Here we attempt to reconcile these divergent findings by systematically exploring the relation between signal strength of the motion stimuli used during training and the resultant magnitude of perceptual learning. Our results show that performance improvements only occurred for the motion-stimuli trained at low, parathreshold, coherence levels. The results are in accord with the hypothesis that weak task-irrelevant signals fail to be 'noticed', and consequently to be suppressed, by the attention system and thus are learned, while stronger stimulus signals are detected, and suppressed [6], and are not learned. These results provide a parsimonious explanation of why task-irrelevant learning is found in some studies but not others, and could give an important clue to resolving a long-standing controversy.

[1]  José E. Náñez,et al.  Greater plasticity in lower-level than higher-level visual motion processing in a passive perceptual learning task , 2002, Nature Neuroscience.

[2]  Michael M Merzenich,et al.  Perceptual Learning Directs Auditory Cortical Map Reorganization through Top-Down Influences , 2006, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[3]  G. Orban,et al.  Practising orientation identi ® cation improves orientation coding in V 1 neurons , 2022 .

[4]  R. Knight,et al.  Prefrontal cortex regulates inhibition and excitation in distributed neural networks. , 1999, Acta psychologica.

[5]  D. G. Albrecht,et al.  Spikes versus BOLD: what does neuroimaging tell us about neuronal activity? , 2000, Nature Neuroscience.

[6]  Yuka Sasaki,et al.  Greater Disruption Due to Failure of Inhibitory Control on an Ambiguous Distractor , 2022 .

[7]  Frans A. J. Verstraten,et al.  Attention-based perceptual learning increases binocular rivalry suppression of irrelevant visual features. , 2008, Journal of vision.

[8]  H. Pashler,et al.  Improvement in line orientation discrimination is retinally local but dependent on cognitive set , 1992, Perception & psychophysics.

[9]  Mitsuo Kawato,et al.  Effect of spatial distance to the task stimulus on task-irrelevant perceptual learning of static Gabors. , 2007, Journal of vision.

[10]  H. Dinse,et al.  Pharmacological Modulation of Perceptual Learning and Associated Cortical Reorganization , 2003, Science.

[11]  J. Movshon,et al.  The analysis of visual motion: a comparison of neuronal and psychophysical performance , 1992, The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience.

[12]  Aaron R. Seitz,et al.  Psychophysics: Is subliminal learning really passive? , 2003, Nature.

[13]  Takeo Watanabe,et al.  Perceptual learning without perception , 2001, Nature.

[14]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  A direct quantitative relationship between the functional properties of human and macaque V5 , 2000, Nature Neuroscience.

[15]  Jochen Braun,et al.  Contrast thresholds for component motion with full and poor attention. , 2007, Journal of vision.

[16]  G. Orban,et al.  Practising orientation identification improves orientation coding in V1 neurons , 2001, Nature.

[17]  S. Hochstein,et al.  Attentional control of early perceptual learning. , 1993, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.