Perceptual learning with complex visual stimuli is based on location, rather than content, of discriminating features.

Abstract

This cover sheet may not be removed from the document.Please scroll down to view the document. exposure learning based on content, but perfect transfer of exposure learning based on location, using a design which allowed for independent tests of location-and content-based performance. In both the experiments reported here, superior discrimination between similar stimuli on the basis of exposure can be explained entirely by learning where to look, with no independent effect of learning about particular stimulus features. These results directly challenge the interpretation of practically all prior experiments using the same type of design and stimuli.

Instruction-driven processing in human perceptual learning

“…Here, as in Experiment 1, the attentional shift to the distinctive features during the test phase mirrored the judgement accuracy. Therefore, these results support the contention that intermixed groups were "learning where to look" (see Jones & Dwyer, 2013) only when instructions induced "controlled looking" or a directed search for the unique features of stimuli.…”

“…Still another finding encompassed by the instruction-driven search hypothesis is that intermixed pre-exposure benefits same/different performance on test even if new stimulus features are placed in the location of the original distinctive features of stimuli (Jones & Dwyer, 2013;Wang et al, 2012, Experiment 3; see also Angulo & Alonso, 2013 for simultaneous pre-exposure). As those authors noted, this finding shows that participants have primarily learned to attend to a specific location on the screen in order to solve the instructed task, more than learning about the distinctive features themselves.…”

“…As those authors noted, this finding shows that participants have primarily learned to attend to a specific location on the screen in order to solve the instructed task, more than learning about the distinctive features themselves. Jones and Dwyer (2013) suggested that this is a potential issue in any study using abstract checkerboards with distinctive features placed in fixed locations. On the surface, the aforementioned finding contradicts the short-term habituation account of the intermixed-blocked effect since the account seems to predict heightened attention to the distinctive features in and of themselves more than to their location, although one could counter that location is simply another distinctive feature (Jones & Dwyer, 2013).…”

Perceptual learning and inversion effects: Recognition of prototype-defined familiar checkerboards.

“…Our final issue concerns a number of recent studies that have shown that perceptual learning can, under some conditions, simply involve participants learning where to look, rather than in any way implying some enhancement of stimulus discriminability (Jones and Dwyer, 2013;Wang, Lavis, Hall and Mitchell, 2012). Could this explanation apply to the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 6443 experiments reported in this paper, so that the inversion effect is due to participants learning where to look during categorization training, and applying this strategy during the recognition experiment, with some success in the case of the upright familiar exemplars, but suffering because of it when dealing with inverted familiar exemplars?…”

Revisiting peak shift on an artificial dimension: Effects of stimulus variability on generalisation

“…In the case of the spatially fixed location conditions, selective attention may shift towards particularly predictive locations rather than (or as well as) towards predictive features. Other learning tasks indicate that participants will deliberately and strategically bias their attention towards regions of a stimulus array that are likely to contain task-relevant information (e.g., for some perceptual learning phenomena, see Jones & Dwyer, 2013; Wang, Lavis, Hall, & Mitchell, 2012). As noted in the “Methods” section, participants in these experiments were told to attend to the whole stimulus because attending to only one part would make the later phase of the experiment more difficult to solve.…”