Eye gaze and individual differences consistent with learned attention in associative blocking and highlighting

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition

Volumn 31, Issue 5, 2005, Pages 830-845

  Kruschke, John K ^a   Kappenman, Emily S ^a   Hetrick, William P ^a  

^a INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Blocking; Eye tracking; Highlighting; Individual differences; Learned attention

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; ATTENTION; EYE MOVEMENT; FEMALE; HUMAN; LEARNING; MALE;

ADOLESCENT; ASSOCIATION; ATTENTION; EYE MOVEMENTS; FEMALE; HUMANS; LEARNING; MALE;

EID: 27944481238     PISSN: 02787393     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/0278-7393.31.5.830     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Anderson, J. R., Bothell, D., & Douglass, S. (2004). Eye movements do not reflect retrieval processes: Limits of the eye-mind hypothesis. Psychological Science, 15, 225-231.
2. Crookes, A. E., & Moran, P. M. (2003). An investigation into age and gender differences in human Kamin blocking, using a computerized task. Developmental Neuropsychology, 24, 461-477.
3. Engle, R. W. (2002). Working memory capacity as executive attention. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 19-23.
4. Fagot, J., Kruschke, J. K., Depy, D., & Vauclair, J. (1998). Associative learning in humans (Homo sapiens) and baboons (Papio papio): Species differences in learned attention to visual features. Animal Cognition, 1, 123-133.
5. Gibbons, H., Rammsayer, T. H., & Lubow, R. E. (2001). Latent inhibition depends on inhibitory attentional learning to the preexposed stimulus: Evidence from visual search and rule-learning tasks. Learning and Motivation, 32, 457-476.
6. Juslin, P., Wennerholm, P., & Winman, A. (2001). High-level reasoning and base-rate use: Do we need cue competition to explain the inverse base-rate effect? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 849-871.
7. Kaakinen, J. K., Hyönä, J., & Keenan, J. M. (2002). Perspective effects on online text processing. Discourse Processes, 33, 159-173.
8. Kalish, M. L. (2001). An inverse base rate effect with continuously valued stimuli. Memory & Cognition, 29, 587-597.
9. Kalish, M. L., & Kruschke, J. K. (2000). The role of attention shifts in the categorization of continuous dimensioned stimuli. Psychological Research, 64, 105-116.
10. 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.
11. Kamin, L. J. (1969). Predictability, surprise, attention, and conditioning. In B. A. Campbell (Ed.), Punishment (pp. 279-296). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
12. Kane, M. J., Bleckley, M. K., Conway, A. R. A., & Engle, R. W. (2001). A controlled-attention view of working-memory capacity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 169-183.
13. Kappenman, E. S., Kruschke, J. K., & Hetrick, W. P. (2005). Highlighting and illusory correlation in schizotypal personality disorder. Manuscript in preparation.
14. Kruschke, J. K. (1992). ALCOVE: An exemplar-based connectionist model of category learning. Psychological Review, 99, 22-44.
15. Kruschke, J. K. (1993). Human category learning: Implications for back-propagation models. Connection Science, 5, 3-36.
16. Kruschke, J. K. (1996). Base rates in category learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 3-26.
17. Kruschke, J. K. (2001a). The inverse base rate effect is not explained by eliminative inference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 1385-1400.
18. Kruschke, J. K. (2001b). Toward a unified model of attention in associative learning. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 45, 812-863.
19. Kruschke, J. K. (2003a). Attention in learning. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12, 171-175.
20. Kruschke, J. K. (2003b). Attentional theory is a viable explanation of the inverse base rate effect: A reply to Winman, Wennerholm, and Juslin (2003). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 1396-1400.
21. Kruschke, J. K. (2005). Learning involves attention. In G. Houghton (Ed.), Connectionist models in cognitive psychology (pp. 113-140). Hove, England: Psychology Press.
22. Kruschke, J. K., & Blair, N. J. (2000). Blocking and backward blocking involve learned inattention. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7, 636-645.
23. Kruschke, J. K., & Johansen, M. K. (1999). A model of probabilistic category learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 1083-1119.
24. Logan, G. D. (2002). An instance theory of attention and memory. Psychological Review, 109, 376-400.
25. Logan, G. D. (2004). Cumulative progress in formal theories of attention. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 207-234.
26. Lohmeier, J. H. (1996). The role of feature validity in categorization learning: Effects on attention to and access of featural information. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts. (UMI No. AAM9606540)
27. Mackintosh, N. J. (1975). A theory of attention: Variations in the associability of stimuli with reinforcement. Psychological Review, 82, 276-298.
28. Mackintosh, N. J., & Turner, C. (1971). Blocking as a function of novelty of CS and predictability of UCS. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 23, 359-366.
29. 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.
30. Medin, D. L., & Edelson, S. M. (1988). Problem structure and the use of base-rate information from experience. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 117, 68-85.
31. Nosofsky, R. M., Palmeri, T. J., & McKinley, S. C. (1994). Rule-plus-exception model of classification learning. Psychological Review, 101, 53-79.
32. Pearce, J. M., & Bouton, M. E. (2001). Theories of associative learning in animals. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 111-139.
33. Pearce, J. M., & Hall, G. (1980). A model for Pavlovian learning: Variations in the effectiveness of conditioned but not unconditioned stimuli. Psychological Review, 87, 532-552.
34. Rehder, B., & Hoffman, A. B. (2005). Eye tracking and selective attention in category learning. Cognitive Psychology, 51, 1-41.
35. Rehder, B., & Hoffman, A. B. (in press). Thirty-something categorization results explained: Selective attention, eyetracking, and models of category learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition.
36. Rescorla, R. A., & Wagner, A. R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and non-reinforcement. In A. H. Black & W. F. Prokasy (Eds.), Classical conditioning II: Current research and theory (pp. 64-99). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
37. Tassoni, C. J. (1995). The least mean squares network with information coding: A model of cue learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 193-204.
38. 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.
39. Verguts, T., Ameel, E., & Storms, G. (2004). Measures of similarity in models of categorization. Memory & Cognition, 32, 379-389.
40. Webb, M. R., & Lee, M. D. (2004). Modeling individual differences in category learning. In K. Forbus, D. Gentner, & T. Regier (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1440-1445). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
41. Young, M. E., & Wasserman, E. A. (2002). Limited attention and cue order consistency affect predictive learning: A test of similarity measures. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 484-496.