Hidden covariation detection might be very hidden indeed.

Hendrickx, H.; Houwer, Jan De; Baeyens, Frank; Eelen, Paul; Avermaet, Eddy Van

doi:10.1037/0278-7393.23.1.201

Cited by 36 publications

(107 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

100

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Cohen, et al, 1990;Lewicki, 1986;Lewicki, Hill, & Czyzewska, 1992. On the other hand, the result is consistent with recent findings that raise some doubts about the ubiquity and unavoidability of stimulus transition learning (Hendrickx, de Houwer, Baeyens, Eelen, & van Avermaet, 1997;Jime´nez & Me´ndez, 1999).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Unique transitions between stimuli and responses in SRT tasks: Evidence for the primacy of response predictions

Hoffmann

Martín

Schilling

2003

Psychological Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present experiments aimed at separating the impact stimulus and response predictions have on serial learning and performance in SRT tasks. In Experiment 1, a unique transition between two of four responses in an otherwise random response sequence was triggered by ambiguous stimulus transitions, allowing local response predictions but no stimulus predictions. The data indicated explicit transition knowledge and strong performance benefits. In Experiments 2 and 3, unique transitions between two of four stimuli in otherwise random stimulus sequences allowed local stimulus predictions under conditions of ambiguous response transitions. The data indicated fragmentary explicit transition knowledge but no performance effects. Experiments 4a and 4b reveal that the inefficacy of the unique stimulus transitions in Experiments 2 and 3 was presumably due to the fact that the stimuli differed with respect to conjunctions of response relevant and response irrelevant features which participants did not have to attend. However, although in Experiments 4a and 4b unique transitions between response relevant stimuli were applied, substantial explicit transition knowledge but only marginal performance effects resulted. It is argued i) that in SRT tasks learning mechanisms are addressed that primarily strive for reliable predictions of forthcoming responses and ii) that for these mechanisms to work the predictors have to be attended. Response transitions are easily learned and used because both criteria are fulfilled. In contrast, pure stimulus transitions are learned only if the predictive stimuli are attended, and learned stimulus transitions become effective only to the extent that the predicted stimuli specify the required responses.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Unique transitions between stimuli and responses in SRT tasks: Evidence for the primacy of response predictions

Hoffmann

Martín

Schilling

2003

Psychological Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…When we excluded the 8 participants who mentioned sound from the analyses, the effect in Block 3 was no longer significant at the .01 level, t(54) ϭ 2.31, p Ͼ .024. Finally, we also considered the possibility that other covariates than the one investigated might coincidentally have contributed to the effect (i.e., correlated covariates; Hendrickx et al, 1997), perhaps even consciously. Some common characteristics between the names other than the vowels might have worked as such.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As Hendrickx et al (1997) have noted, a failure to detect only a few instances of explicit knowledge may directly influence the effect. Because it is impossible to be certain that all participants remained unaware at all times, the effect might be confounded by undetected awareness in some participants, which may cast some doubt on whether the HCD effect is based on unconscious processing.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In an attempt to demonstrate this phenomenon, Lewicki, Hill, and Czyzewska (1992) reported that individuals who were to assess, for instance, personality characteristics of people they had not seen or met before could be biased in their assessments by nonsalient characteristics of a person. They found evidence for nonconscious processing of information by showing that a nonconscious encoding bias, or a ''learned inferential encoding rule'' (Hill, Lewicki, Czyzewska, & Schuller, 1990), may develop in a self-perpetuating manner (but see Shanks & St. John [1994] for a critical discussion, and Dulany & Poldrack [1991] and Hendrickx, De Houwer, Baeyens, Eelen, & Van Avermaet [1997] for partly successful and nonsuccessful replications).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

When Seemingly Irrelevant Details Matter: Hidden Covariation Detection Reexamined

Bos

Bonke

1998

Consciousness and Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Implicit learning has also been observed in priming studies (Bodner & Masson, 2001Greenwald, Abrams, Naccache, & Stanislas, 2003;Jaskowski, Skalska, & Verleger, 2003), sequential learning studies (Destrebecqz & Cleeremans, 2001;Jiménez & Méndez, 1999;Mayr, 1996;Nissen & Bullemer, 1987), and object-location learning studies (Hoffmann & Kunde, 1999;Musen, 1996). Additionally, Lewicki (1986;Lewicki et al, 1992Lewicki et al, , 1997 reported various demonstrations of implicit covariation learning (cf., Hendrickx et al, 1997aHendrickx et al, , 1997b. Given all this data, implicit learning seems to be a highly replicable and general phenomenon (although there will always be some debate over what constitutes evidence of implicit learning; see Frensch & Rünger, 2003, for a discussion of these issues).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Contingency learning without awareness: Evidence for implicit control

Schmidt

Crump

Cheesman

et al. 2007

Consciousness and Cognition

168

268

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The results of four experiments provide evidence for controlled processing in the absence of awareness. Participants identified the colour of a neutral distracter word. Each of four words (e.g., MOVE) was presented in one of four colours 75% of the time (Experiments 1 and 4) or 50% of the time (Experiment 2 and 3). Colour identification was faster when the words appeared in the colour they were most often presented in relative to when they appeared in another colour, even for participants who were subjectively unaware of any contingencies between the words and colours. An analysis of sequence effects showed that participants who were unaware of the relation between distracter words and colours nonetheless controlled the impact of the word on performance depending on the nature of the previous trial. A block analysis of contingencyunaware participants revealed that contingencies were learned rapidly in the first block of trials.Experiment 3 showed that the contingency effect does not depend on level of awareness, thus ruling out explicit strategy accounts. Finally, Experiment 4 showed that the contingency effect results from behavioural control and not from semantic association or stimulus familiarity. These results thus provide evidence for implicit control. Implicit Control 3Contingency Learning without Awareness: Evidence for Implicit Control Cognitive processes that are controlled are conventionally assumed to operate in a slow, effortful, and voluntary manner (Posner & Cohen, 1984;Posner & Snyder, 1975; Shiffrin & Schnieder, 1977). Thus, when researchers discuss the influence of "controlled" processes, it is typically assumed that such processes are explicit (i.e., conscious; cf., Besner & Stolz, 1999). As such, the term "implicit control" would seem to be nonsensical, because "implicit" (i.e., unconscious) seems to preclude the possibility of control. However, etymologically speaking this is not a necessary conclusion. The Oxford English Dictionary (2001) Evidence for cognitive control, which is assumed to be explicit and strategic in nature, has been drawn from the Stroop literature (Stroop, 1935). In the Stroop task, identification of the print colour of colour words is slower when the word and ink colour are incongruent (e.g., the word GREEN in orange; GREEN orange ) than when they are congruent (e.g., ORANGE orange ; see MacLeod, 1991, for a review). Probably the most important demonstration of putatively controlled processes in the Stroop literature is the proportion congruent effect. The proportion congruent effect refers to the finding that the size of the Stroop effect is influenced by the proportion of congruent items in a block of trials (Lindsay & Jacoby, 1994;Logan & Zbrodoff, 1979). Specifically, the Stroop effect is much larger in a high proportion congruent block of trials than in a low proportion congruent block of trials. This effect is commonly attributed to Implicit Control 4 participants explicitly learning to predict the colour from the word. Specifically, because the word us...

show abstract

Hidden covariation detection might be very hidden indeed.

Cited by 36 publications

References 39 publications

Unique transitions between stimuli and responses in SRT tasks: Evidence for the primacy of response predictions

Unique transitions between stimuli and responses in SRT tasks: Evidence for the primacy of response predictions

When Seemingly Irrelevant Details Matter: Hidden Covariation Detection Reexamined

Contingency learning without awareness: Evidence for implicit control

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About