Modeling attention in associative learning: Two processes or one?

Certain studies of associative learning show that attention is more substantial to cues that have a history of being predictive of an outcome than to cues that are irrelevant. At the same time, other studies show that attention is more substantial to cues whose outcomes are uncertain than to cues whose outcomes are predictable. This has led to the suggestion of there being two kinds of attention in associative learning: one based upon a mechanism that allocates attention to a cue on the basis of its predictiveness, the other based upon a mechanism that allocates attention to a cue on the basis of its prediction error (e.g., Le Pelley, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57B, 193–243, 2004). As an alternative, it has been demonstrated that the effects of both predictiveness and uncertainty can be accounted for with only one kind of attention: one that emphasizes the role of prediction (Esber & Haselgrove, Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 278, 2553–2561, 2011). Here, we consider the alternative: whether the effects of predictiveness and uncertainty can be reconciled with a model of learning that emphasizes the role of prediction error (Pearce, Kaye, & Hall, 1982). Simulations of this model reveal that, in many cases, it too is able to account for the influence of predictiveness and uncertainty in associative learning.

[1]  L. Kamin.  Predictability, surprise, attention, and conditioning , 1967 .

[2]  J. Konorski.  Integrative activity of the brain , 1967 .

[3]  D. Lawrence,et al.  Attention in Discrimination Learning , 1969 .

[4]  B. Campbell,et al.  Punishment and aversive behavior , 1969 .

[5]  N. Mackintosh,et al.  Intradimensional and extradimensional shift learning by pigeons , 1969 .

[6]  N. Mackintosh,et al.  Mechanisms of animal discrimination learning , 1971 .

[7]  N. Mackintosh,et al.  Blocking as a Function of Novelty of CS and Predictability of UCS , 1971, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[8]  R. Rescorla.  A theory of pavlovian conditioning: The effectiveness of reinforcement and non-reinforcement , 1972 .

[9]  W. F. Prokasy,et al.  Classical conditioning II: Current research and theory. , 1972 .

[10]  N. Mackintosh.  A Theory of Attention: Variations in the Associability of Stimuli with Reinforcement , 1975 .

[11]  A. G. Baker,et al.  Preexposure to the CS alone, US alone, or CS and US uncorrelated: Latent inhibition, blocking by context or learned irrelevance? , 1979 .

[12]  W. K. Honig,et al.  Cognitive Processes in Animal Behavior , 1979 .

[13]  J. Pearce,et al.  A model for Pavlovian learning: Variations in the effectiveness of conditioned but not of unconditioned stimuli. , 1980 .

[14]  N. Donegan.  Priming-produced facilitation or diminution of responding to a Pavlovian unconditioned stimulus. , 1981, Journal of experimental psychology. Animal behavior processes.

[15]  J. Pearce,et al.  Restoring the Associability of a Pre-Exposed CS by a Surprising Event , 1982 .

[16]  J. Pearce,et al.  The orienting response as an index of stimulus associability in rats. , 1988, Journal of experimental psychology. Animal behavior processes.

[17]  J. Pearce,et al.  Restoration of the Orienting Response to a Light by a Change in its Predictive Accuracy , 1992 .

[18]  N. Schmajuk,et al.  Occasion setting: Associative learning and cognition in animals. , 1998 .

[19]  J. Pearce,et al.  The role of attention in the solution of conditional discriminations , 1998 .

[20]  J. Pearce,et al.  Acquired distinctiveness is controlled by stimulus relevance not correlation with reward , 1999 .

[21]  M. Gallagher,et al.  Blocking can occur without losses in attention in rats with selective removal of hippocampal cholinergic input. , 1999, Behavioral neuroscience.

[22]  R. Rescorla.  Associative changes in excitors and inhibitors differ when they are conditioned in compound. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Animal behavior processes.

[23]  J. Kruschke.  Toward a unified model of attention in associative learning , 2001 .

[24]  I. Mclaren,et al.  Learned Associability and Associative Change in Human Causal Learning , 2003, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. B, Comparative and physiological psychology.

[25]  M. Pelley.  The Role of Associative History in Models of Associative Learning: A Selective Review and a Hybrid Model: , 2004 .

[26]  Guillem R. Esber,et al.  The nature of discrimination learning in pigeons , 2008, Learning & behavior.

[27]  M. L. Le Pelley,et al.  Learned predictiveness effects in humans: a function of learning, performance, or both? , 2009, Journal of experimental psychology. Animal behavior processes.

[28]  Guillem R. Esber,et al.  Stimuli that signal the absence of reinforcement are paid more attention than are irrelevant stimuli , 2010, Learning & behavior.

[29]  Christopher J. Mitchell,et al.  Attention and Associative Learning: From Brain to Behaviour , 2010 .

[30]  Peter M. Jones,et al.  Two kinds of attention in Pavlovian conditioning: evidence for a hybrid model of learning. , 2010, Journal of experimental psychology. Animal behavior processes.

[31]  N. Mackintosh,et al.  Two theories of attention: a review and a possible integration , 2010 .

[32]  Computational Models of Conditioning: The hybrid modeling approach to conditioning , 2010 .

[33]  Guillem R. Esber,et al.  Differences in the associability of relevant and irrelevant stimuli. , 2010, Journal of experimental psychology. Animal behavior processes.

[34]  Nestor Schmajuk,et al.  Computational Models of Conditioning: Frontmatter , 2010 .

[35]  Guillem R. Esber,et al.  Reconciling the influence of predictiveness and uncertainty on stimulus salience: a model of attention in associative learning , 2011, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[36]  J. Pearce,et al.  A configural theory of attention and associative learning , 2012, Learning & Behavior.