How is spatial context learning integrated over signal versus noise? A primacy effect in contextual cueing

Abstract

Over repeated exposure to particular visual search displays, subjects are able to implicitly extract regularities that then make search more efficient-a phenomenon known as contextual cueing. Here we explore how the learning involved in contextual cueing is formed, maintained, and updated over experience. During an initial training phase, a group of signal first subjects searched through a series of predictive displays (where distractor locations were perfectly correlated with the target location), followed with no overt break by a series of unpredictive displays (where repeated contexts were uncorrelated with target locations). A second noise first group of subjects encountered the unpredictive displays followed by the predictive displays. Despite the fact that both groups had the same overall exposure to signal and noise, only the signal first group demonstrated subsequent contextual cueing. This primacy effect indicates that initial experience can result in hypotheses about regularities in displays-or the lack thereof-which then become resistant to updating. The absence of regularities in early stages of training even blocked observers from learning predictive regularities later on.A major goal of visual processing is to recover information about the structure of the natural environment. Such information comes in several forms. Perhaps most intuitively, visual processing involves recovering the local visual features of objects, and the way those objects and features are arranged into visual scenes. A considerable amount of regularity in visual input, however, is also statistically distributed in both space and time. Accordingly, the visual system also appears to automatically extract regularities in spatial layouts and temporal sequences-including subtle regularities that may not be available to conscious report. Here we focus on determining just how and when such learning is triggered, maintained, and updated over time, focusing on contextual cueing.Please address all correspondence to Justin Jungé, Department of Psychology, Yale University, PO Box 208205, 2 Hillhouse Ave., New Haven, CT 06520-8205, USA. E-mail: justin.junge@yale.edu. Publisher's Disclaimer: Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article maybe used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. © Taylor and Franc...

How visual and semantic information influence learning in familiar contexts.

“…Although a similar interpretation had been initially proposed by Chun and Jiang (1998) to explain contextual cuing in the classic task, this latter one is currently debated. Because contextual cuing in simple stimuli arrays relies more upon the repetition of the local context than upon the global context, an explanation in terms of guidance benefit seems to poorly account for contextual cuing effects observed with the classic task (Kunar et al, 2007;however, Fiske & Sanocki, 2010;Jungé, Scholl, & Chun, 2007). Such effects might, in some part, result from enhanced feature contrast signals at the overall-salience computation Figure 6.…”

The persistence of the attentional bias to regularities in a changing environment

“…One barrier to processing the newly introduced regularities is that participants may become habituated to the noise in the random stream in the first half of exposure and block learning of new regularities in these stimuli later (Jungé et al, 2007;Gebhart et al, 2009). Such habituation is driven by two factors: the initial exposure to the randomness of the stimuli in the random stream, or the fact that the same stimuli were presented throughout exposure.…”

“…Recent studies have suggested that the learning of regularities is subject to a primacy effect (Gebhart, Aslin, & Newport, 2009;Jungé, Scholl, & Chun, 2007;Jiang, Swallow, Rosenbaum, & Herzig, 2013;Lew-Williams & Saffran, 2012). For example, in one study (Gebhart et al, 2009) participants were first exposed to one artificial language containing syllables that reliably co-occurred in a specific order.…”

Spatial Configuration and Online Attention: A Space Syntax Perspective

“…These spatial features in cyberspace are not consistent with actual tourist routes, and the density map shows the cores gathering at the two main entrances (Cableways A and B), highlighting the significant primacy effect of the first impression region [6,35]. From the map of the internal trail network (Figure 6), the two cableways are generally accessible; however, from the complete flow of tourist routes, they are the most accessible and controlling axes.…”