Reward Draws the Eye, Uncertainty Holds the Eye: Associative Learning Modulates Distractor Interference in Visual Search

Koenig, Stephan; Kadel, Hanna; Uengoer, Metin; Schubö, Anna; Lachnit, Harald

doi:10.3389/fnbeh.2017.00128

Cited by 33 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…An aversive learning experiment found that the trial‐by‐trial PSR predominantly reflects expected CS outcome (Tzovara et al, ). Interestingly, earlier studies have also found evidence in support of the Pearce‐Hall learning theory in gaze‐dwelling time, showing longer gaze durations on stimuli associated with appetitive and aversive uncertain outcome (Hogarth, Dickinson, Austin, Brown, & Duka, ; Koenig, Kadel, Uengoer, Schubö, & Lachnit, ), which is consistent with our result. Taken together, while pupil dilation was a sensitive measure of appetitive conditioning in our study, it seems to be more related to attentional processes rather than appetitive value.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Pupil dilation as an implicit measure of appetitive Pavlovian learning

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Appetitive Pavlovian conditioning is a learning mechanism of fundamental biological and pathophysiological significance. Nonetheless, its exploration in humans remains sparse, which is partly attributed to the lack of an established psychophysiological parameter that aptly represents conditioned responding. This study evaluated pupil diameter and other ocular response measures (gaze dwelling time, blink duration and count) as indices of conditioning. Additionally, a learning model was used to infer participants’ learning progress on the basis of their pupil dilation. Twenty‐nine healthy volunteers completed an appetitive differential delay conditioning paradigm with a primary reward, while the ocular response measures along with other psychophysiological (heart rate, electrodermal activity, postauricular and eyeblink reflex) and behavioral (ratings, contingency awareness) parameters were obtained to examine the relation among different measures. A significantly stronger increase in pupil diameter, longer gaze duration and shorter eyeblink duration was observed in response to the reward‐predicting cue compared to the control cue. The Pearce‐Hall attention model best predicted the trial‐by‐trial pupil diameter. This conditioned response was corroborated by a pronounced heart rate deceleration to the reward‐predicting cue, while no conditioning effect was observed in the electrodermal activity or startle responses. There was no discernible correlation between the psychophysiological response measures. These results highlight the potential value of ocular response measures as sensitive indices for representing appetitive conditioning.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Pupil dilation as an implicit measure of appetitive Pavlovian learning

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In short, the theory predicts that, after learning the reward contingencies, partially reinforced, uncertain cues (50% reinforcement, high prediction error) attract more attention than consistently reinforced cues (100% reinforcement, small prediction error). Empirical evidence in support of this hypothesis has been previously reported for classical conditioning in rats (Haselgrove, Esber, Pearce, & Jones, 2010;Kaye & Pearce, 1984;Swan & Pearce, 1988) and with respect to longer fixation dwell time on uncertain cues in human associative learning (Hogarth, Dickinson, Austin, Brown, & Duka, 2008;Koenig, Kadel, Uengoer, Schub€ o, & Lachnit, 2017;.…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 68%

“…In the human domain, an attentional bias for uncertain cues has been reported with respect to total dwell time during learning (Beesley, Nguyen, Pearson, & Le Pelley, ; Hogarth et al, ). Additionally, it has recently been demonstrated that such an overt selection bias for uncertain cues is automatic to some extent and prolongs fixation duration on previously uncertain cues, even if these cues are introduced as irrelevant distracters in a different task where any selection of these distracters is nonstrategic and counterproductive (Koenig, Kadel et al, ; Koenig, Uengoer, & Lachnit, ). In extension of these previous findings, our results provide evidence for the unique prediction of how attentional priority should change from the outset to the end of training.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In Experiment 1, we measured changes in pupil size while participants engaged in a contingency learning task with monetary reward of 0, 1, or 10 cents as reinforcement. The task was designed primarily to examine changes in overt attention, and the learning-related changes in ocular fixations in this experiment have been reported elsewhere (Koenig, Kadel et al, 2017). Figure 2 (left column) depicts the design of the learning task of Experiment 1.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We analyzed the pupil response in the cue interval before the reward was presented. The learning task consisted of 144 trials with 48 trials per condition L, P, and H. For statistical analysis, pupil size was averaged within blocks of eight successive trials within condition (for further details of the procedure, refer to Koenig, Kadel et al, 2017). Figure 3a shows the pupil response elicited by color cues over the course of six learning blocks.…”

Section: Stimuli and Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Pupil dilation indicates the coding of past prediction errors: Evidence for attentional learning theory

2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The attentional learning theory of Pearce and Hall (1980) predicts more attention to uncertain cues that have caused a high prediction error in the past. We examined how the cue-elicited pupil dilation during associative learning was linked to such errordriven attentional processes. In three experiments, participants were trained to acquire associations between different cues and their appetitive (Experiment 1), motor (Experiment 2), or aversive (Experiment 3) outcomes. All experiments were designed to examine differences in the processing of continuously reinforced cues (consistently followed by the outcome) versus partially reinforced, uncertain cues (randomly followed by the outcome). We measured the pupil dilation elicited by the cues in anticipation of the outcome and analyzed how this conditioned pupil response changed over the course of learning. In all experiments, changes in pupil size complied with the same basic pattern: During early learning, consistently reinforced cues elicited greater pupil dilation than uncertain, randomly reinforced cues, but this effect gradually reversed to yield a greater pupil dilation for uncertain cues toward the end of learning. The pattern of data accords with the changes in prediction error and error-driven attention formalized by the Pearce-Hall theory. K E Y W O R D Sassociative learning, attention, human fear conditioning, pupil dilation, reward | IN TRO DUCT IO NAssociative learning theories assume that repeated observations of the co-occurrence of two external events will lead to the formation of an association that links the representation of both events in memory (Pearce & Bouton, 2001;Rescorla, 1988). However, the association between cues and a significant outcome like reward (or punishment) often is acquired in an uncertain environment, where the contingency between cues and the outcome is not perfect but rather probabilistic. From this perspective, the learning process involves two important variables: (a) the expectancy of the outcome given the cue, and (b) the uncertainty of that expectation. For example, if three different cues were followed by reward on 0%, 50%, and 100% of their past occurrences, these cues differ with respect to reward expectancy and uncertainty. The 0% cue elicits low reward expectancy and low uncertainty. The 100% cue elicits high reward expectancy and low uncertainty. The 50% cue is partially reinforced and elicits an intermediate reward expectancy but high uncertainty whether reward will occur or not. From the perspective of associative learning theories, this uncertainty results from the fact that the 50% cue in the past had been associated with a higher prediction error, whereas in contrast this error in predicting the omission or occurrence of the outcome was small for the 0% cue and the 100% cue.

show abstract

Multiple reward–cue contingencies favor expectancy over uncertainty in shaping the reward–cue attentional salience

Tommaso

Mastropasqua

Turatto

2018

Psychological Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reward-predicting cues attract attention because of their motivational value. A debated question regards the conditions under which the cue's attentional salience is governed more by reward expectancy rather than by reward uncertainty. To help shedding light on this relevant issue, here, we manipulated expectancy and uncertainty using three levels of reward-cue contingency, so that, for example, a high level of reward expectancy (p = .8) was compared with the highest level of reward uncertainty (p = .5). In Experiment 1, the best reward-cue during conditioning was preferentially attended in a subsequent visual search task. This result was replicated in Experiment 2, in which the cues were matched in terms of response history. In Experiment 3, we implemented a hybrid procedure consisting of two phases: an omission contingency procedure during conditioning, followed by a visual search task as in the previous experiments. Crucially, during both phases, the reward-cues were never task relevant. Results confirmed that, when multiple reward-cue contingencies are explored by a human observer, expectancy is the major factor controlling both the attentional and the oculomotor salience of the reward-cue.

show abstract

Reward Draws the Eye, Uncertainty Holds the Eye: Associative Learning Modulates Distractor Interference in Visual Search

Cited by 33 publications

References 49 publications

Pupil dilation as an implicit measure of appetitive Pavlovian learning

Pupil dilation as an implicit measure of appetitive Pavlovian learning

Pupil dilation indicates the coding of past prediction errors: Evidence for attentional learning theory

Multiple reward–cue contingencies favor expectancy over uncertainty in shaping the reward–cue attentional salience

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About