Intentional versus unintentional use of contingencies between perceptual events

Abstract

In three experiments we studied human ability to use statistical contingencies between visual stimuli (flankers and targets) to improve performance in a letter-digit classification task. We compared the performance of explicitly informed subjects with that of subjects who were told nothing of the contingencies. Simultaneous presentation offlankers and targets (Experiment 1) produced evidence of unintentional contingency use by both informed and uninformed subjects. When stimuli on trial n predicted target stimuli on trial n + 1 (Experiment 2) there was no evidence of unintentional processes, but informed subjects showed strong evidence of using intentional prediction strategies. When flanker onset preceded target stimuli presentation (Experiment 3), evidence of contingency use by both informed and uninformed subjects was found, but the data illustrated qualitative differences in response style (e.g., speed-accuracy tradeoffs) between the two groups. Intentional and unintentional uses of contingencies between perceptual events are qualitatively distinct with respect to the time frame in which they can be applied and the performance patterns they produce. Finally, we argue that the unintentional processes studied here are implicit in nature.

Learning, awareness, and instruction: Subjective contingency awareness does matter in the colour-word contingency learning paradigm

“…Thus, the better performance on high relative to low contingency trials seems to be a case of implicit learning. Similar reports of learning without awareness have been found in a wide array of performance (i.e., response time) paradigms, such as the Eriksen flanker task (Carlson & Flowers, 1996;Miller, 1987), serial response time task (Destrebecqz & Cleeremans, 2001;Jiménez & Méndez, 1999;Mayr, 1996;Nissen & Bullemer, 1987;Song, Howard, & Howard, 2007; Willingham, Nissen, & Bullemer, 1989), and hidden covariation detection tasks (Lewicki, 1985(Lewicki, , 1986Lewicki, Hill, & Czyzewska, 1992), along with other paradigms such as the Hebb digits task (McKelvie, 1987).…”

“…If true, this would mean that the colour-word contingency learning paradigm is exactly the type of paradigm mostly likely to be immune to conscious contingency knowledge. In line with this idea, paradigms in which the distracter is presented in advance of the target do often show a positive effect of contingency knowledge, for instance, in a flanker task where flankers were presented in advance of the target (Carlson & Flowers, 1996, Experiment 3) and in sequence learning (e.g., Mayr, 1996).…”

“…If true, this would mean that the colour-word contingency learning paradigm is exactly the type of paradigm mostly likely to be immune to conscious contingency knowledge. In line with this idea, paradigms in which the distracter is presented in advance of the target do often show a positive effect of contingency knowledge, for instance, in a flanker task where flankers were presented in advance of the target (Carlson & Flowers, 1996, Experiment 3) and in sequence learning (e.g., Mayr, 1996).On the other hand, concluding that conscious contingency knowledge cannot aid learning in tasks where the target and contingent distracter are presented simultaneously requires accepting the null results of only a few experiments. When considering subjective measures of awareness, there are at least two reasons why some previous studies may have failed to reveal a relation between contingency awareness and learning.…”

Contingency learning and unlearning in the blink of an eye: A resource dependent process

“…This suggests that, independent of the participant's awareness of the task manipulation, the processes involved in learning are implicit. A similar argument has been made from results of a flanker task in which flanking cues were predictive of the response (Carlson & Flowers, 1996), sequence learning (Song, Howard Jr., & Howard, 2007), and other paradigms (e.g., Lewicki, Hill, & Czyzewska, 1992). However, the role of awareness in contingency learning is a highly controversial issue.…”

Flanker recall and the flanker validity effect may reflect different attentional processes

“…Of interest in the correlated flanker task are responses to two types of trials: valid trials, in which the flankers are highly correlated with the same response as that required by the target (and, therefore, validly cue the target response), and invalid trials, in which the flankers are highly correlated with the other response (and, therefore, invalidly cue the target response). Research with the correlated flanker task has shown that response times are slowed to targets on invalid trials, relative to valid trials (e.g., Carlson & Flowers, 1996;Miller, 1987Miller, , 1991Paquet & Lortie, 1990;Schmidt & Dark, 1998;Stadler & Proctor, 1993). That is, response times showed that participants are influenced by the flanker-response correlations.…”