Does temporal contiguity moderate contingency learning in a speeded performance task?

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

Volumn 65, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 408-425

  Schmidt, James R ^a   de Houwer, Jan ^a  

^a GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Contingency learning; Interstimulus interval; Performance tasks; Stimulus onset asynchrony; Temporal contiguity

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ATTENTION; AWARENESS; COLOR VISION; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HUMAN; LEARNING; LINGUISTICS; MALE; METHODOLOGY; PHOTOSTIMULATION; PHYSIOLOGY; REACTION TIME; RECOGNITION; SEMANTICS; STUDENT; TIME; UNIVERSITY;

ASSOCIATION LEARNING; ATTENTION; AWARENESS; COLOR PERCEPTION; FEMALE; HUMANS; JUDGMENT; MALE; PHOTIC STIMULATION; REACTION TIME; RECOGNITION (PSYCHOLOGY); SEMANTICS; STUDENTS; TIME FACTORS; UNIVERSITIES; VOCABULARY;

EID: 84859506479     PISSN: 17470218     EISSN: 17470226     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/17470218.2011.632486     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Allan, L. G. 2005. Learning of contingent relationships. Learning & Behavior, 33: 127-129.
2. Allan, L. G., Tangen, J. M., Wood, R. and Shaw, T. 2003. Temporal contiguity and contingency judgements: A Pavlovian analogue. Integrative Physiological & Behavioral Science, 38: 214-229.
3. Arcediano, F., Ortega, N. and Matute, H. 1996. A behavioural preparation for the study of human Pavlovian conditioning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49B: 270-283.
4. Beckers, T., De Houwer, J. and Matute, H. 2007. Editorial: Human contingency learning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60: 289-290.
5. Buehner, M. J. 2005. Contiguity and covariation in human causal inference. Learning & Behavior, 32: 230-238.
6. Buehner, M. J. and May, J. 2002. Knowledge mediates the timeframe of covariation assessment in human causal induction. Thinking and Reasoning, 8: 269-295.
7. Buehner, M. J. and May, J. 2003. Rethinking temporal contiguity and the judgment of causality: Effects of prior knowledge, experience, and reinforcement procedure. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56A: 865-890.
8. Buehner, M. J. and May, J. 2004. Abolishing the effect of reinforcement delay on human causal learning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57B: 179-191.
9. Buehner, M. J. and McGregor, S. 2006. Temporal delays can facilitate causal attribution: Towards a general timeframe bias in causal induction. Thinking & Reasoning, 12: 353-378.
10. Carlson, K. A. and Flowers, J. H. 1996. Intentional versus unintentional use of contingencies between perceptual events. Perception & Psychophysics, 58: 460-470.
11. Destrebecqz, A. and Cleeremans, A. 2001. Can sequence learning be implicit? New evidence with the process dissociation procedure. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8: 343-350.
12. Elsner, B. and Hommel, B. 2004. Contiguity and contingency in action-effect learning. Psychological Research, 68: 138-154.
13. Experimental Software Tools. 2002. E-Prime [Computer software]. Retrieved from http://www.pst-net.com
14. Fiedler, K. 1991. The tricky nature of skewed frequency tables: An information loss account of distinctiveness-based illusory correlations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60: 24-36.
15. Glaser, M. O. and Glaser, W. R. 1982. Time course analysis of the Stroop phenomenon. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 8: 875-894.
16. Hagmayer, Y. and Waldmann, M. R. 2002. How temporal assumptions influence causal judgments. Memory & Cognition, 30: 1128-1137.
17. Hendrickx, H., De Houwer, J., Baeyens, F., Eelen, P. and Van Avermaet, E. 1997a. Hidden covariation detection might be very hidden indeed. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 23: 201-220.
18. Hendrickx, H., De Houwer, J., Baeyens, F., Eelen, P. and Van Avermaet, E. 1997b. The hide-and-seek of hidden covariation detection: Reply to Lewicki, Hill, and Czyzewska (1997). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 23: 229-231.
19. Hermans, D., De Houwer, J. and Eelen, P. 2001. A time course analysis of the affective priming effect. Cognition and Emotion, 15: 143-165.
20. Hume, D. 1969. A treatise of human nature, New York, NY: Penguin. (Original work published 1739)
21. Jiménez, L. and Méndez, C. 1999. Which attention is needed for implicit sequence learning?. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 25: 236-259.
22. Lewicki, P. 1985. Nonconscious biasing effects of single instances on subsequent judgements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48: 563-574.
23. Lewicki, P. 1986. Processing information about covariations that cannot be articulated. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 12: 135-146.
24. Lewicki, P., Hill, T. and Czyzewska, M. 1992. Nonconscious acquisition of information. American Psychologist, 47: 796-801.
25. Lewicki, P., Hill, T. and Czyzewska, M. 1997. Hidden covariation detection: A fundamental and ubiquitous phenomenon. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 23: 221-228.
26. Logan, G. D. 1988. Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review, 95: 492-527.
27. Mayr, U. 1996. Spatial attention and implicit sequence learning: Evidence for independent learning of spatial and nonspatial sequences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 22: 350-364.
28. McKelvie, S. J. 1987. Learning and awareness in the Hebb digits task. Journal of General Psychology, 114: 75-88.
29. McLaren, I. P. L., Green, R. E. A. and Mackintosh, N. J. 1994. "Animal learning and the implicit/explicit distinction". In Implicit and explicit learning of languages, Edited by: Ellis, N. C. 313-332. London, UK: Academic Press.
30. Medin, D. L. and Schaffer, M. M. 1978. Context theory of classification learning. Psychological Review, 85: 207-238.
31. Michotte, A. E. 1963. The perception of causality, London, UK: Methuen. (T. R. Miles & E. Miles, Trans.)., (Original work published 1946)
32. Miller, J. 1987. Priming is not necessary for selective-attention failures: Semantic effects of unattended, unprimed letters. Perception & Psychophysics, 41: 419-434.
33. Mutter, S. A., DeCaro, M. S. and Plumlee, L. F. 2009. The role of contingency and contiguity in young and older adults' causal learning. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 64B: 315-323.
34. Nissen, M. J. and Bullemer, P. 1987. Attentional requirements of learning: Evidence from performance measures. Cognitive Psychology, 19: 1-32.
35. Nosofsky, R. M., Clark, S. E. and Shin, H. J. 1989. Rules and exemplars in categorization, identification, and recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 15: 282-304.
36. Pacton, S. and Perruchet, P. 2008. An attention-based associative account of adjacent and nonadjacent dependency learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 34: 80-96.
37. Rescorla, R. A. 1967. Pavlovian conditioning and its proper control procedures. Psychological Review, 74: 71-80.
38. Schlottmann, A. 1999. Seeing it happen and knowing how it works: How children understand the relation between perceptual causality and underlying mechanism. Developmental Psychology, 35: 303-317.
39. Schmidt, J. R. in press. "Human contingency learning". In Encyclopedia of the sciences of learning, Edited by: Seal, N. M. Springer.
40. Schmidt, J. R. and Besner, D. 2008. The Stroop effect: Why proportion congruent has nothing to do with congruency and everything to do with contingency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 34: 514-523.
41. Schmidt, J. R., Crump, M. J. C., Cheesman, J. and Besner, D. 2007. Contingency learning without awareness: Evidence for implicit control. Consciousness and Cognition, 16: 421-435.
42. Schmidt, J. R., De Houwer, J. and Besner, D. 2010. Contingency learning in the blink of an eye: A resource dependent process. Consciousness and Cognition, 19: 135-150.
43. Shanks, D. R. 2010. Learning: From association to cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 61: 273-301.
44. Shanks, D. R. and Dickinson, A. 1987. Associative accounts of causality judgement. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 21: 229-261.
45. Shanks, D. R. and Dickinson, A. 1991. Instrumental judgment and performance under variations in action-outcome contingency and contiguity. Memory & Cognition, 19: 353-360.
46. Shanks, D. R., Pearson, S. M. and Dickinson, A. 1989. Temporal contiguity and the judgement of causality by human subjects. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41B: 139-159.
47. Shanks, D. R. and St. John, M. F. 1994. Characteristics of dissociable human learning systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 17: 367-447.
48. Song, S., Howard, J. H. Jr. and Howard, D. V. 2007. Implicit probabilistic sequence learning is independent of explicit awareness. Learning & Memory, 14: 167-176.
49. Wagner, A. P. 1981. "SOP: A model of automatic memory processing in animal behavior". In Information processing in animals: Memory mechanisms, Edited by: Spear, N. E. and Miller, R. R. 5-47. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.