Stimulus-driven and goal-driven effects on Pavlovian associative reward learning

It has been shown that pure Pavlovian associative reward learning can elicit value-driven attentional capture. However, in previous studies, task-irrelevant and response-independent reward-signalling stimuli hardly competed for visual selective attention. Here we put Pavlovian reward learning to the test by manipulating the extent to which bottom-up (Experiment 1) and top-down (Experiment 2) processes were involved in this type of learning. In Experiment 1, the stimulus, the colour of which signalled the magnitude of the reward given, was presented simultaneously with another randomly coloured stimulus, so that it did not capture attention in a stimulus-driven manner. In Experiment 2, observers performed an attentionally demanding RSVP-task at the centre of the screen to largely tax goal-driven attentional resources, while a task-irrelevant and response-independent stimulus in the periphery signalled the magnitude of the reward given. Both experiments showed value-driven attentional capture in a non-reward test phase, indicating that the reward-signalling stimuli were imbued with value during the Pavlovian reward conditioning phases. This suggests that pure Pavlovian reward conditioning can occur even when (1) competition prevents attention being automatically allocated to the reward-signalling stimulus in a stimulus-driven manner, and (2) attention is occupied by a demanding task, leaving little goal-driven attentional resources available to strategically select the reward-signalling stimulus. The observed value-driven attentional capture effects appeared to be similar for observers who could and could not explicitly report the stimulus–reward contingencies. Altogether, this study provides insight in the conditions under which mere stimulus–reward contingencies in the environment can be learned to affect future behaviour

Looking at paintings in the Vincent Van Gogh Museum: eye movement patterns of children and adults

In the present study, we examined the eye movement behaviour of children and adults looking at five Van Gogh paintings in the Van Gogh Museum, Amsterdam. The goal of the study was to determine the role of top-down and bottom-up attentional processes in the first stages of participants’ aesthetic experience. Bottom-up processes were quantified by determining a salience map for each painting. Top-down processing was manipulated by first allowing participants to view the paintings freely, then providing background information about each painting, and then allowing them to view the paintings a second time. The salience analysis showed differences between the eye movement behaviour of children and adults, and differences between the two phases. In the children, the first five fixations during the free viewing phase were strongly related to visually salient features of the paintings—indicating a strong role for bottom-up factors. In the second phase, after children had received background information, top-down factors played a more prominent role. By contrast, adults’ observed patterns were similar in both phases, indicating that bottom-up processes did not play a major role when they viewed the paintings. In the second phase, children and adults both spent more time looking at regions that were mentioned in the background information. This effect was greater for adults than for children, confirming the notion that adults, when viewing paintings, rely much more on top-down processing than children

Adults’ fixation time spent in ROI’s as a percentage of total fixation time spent on painting surface (Time in ROI’s) and total fixation time spent on painting surface (Total time).

<p>Note that the names of the paintings are abbreviated.</p

Mean baseline-corrected salience values over fixation index per phase.

<p>In both phase 1 and phase 2, the first five fixations of adults (A) land on regions with similar salience values, whereas for children (B), the first fixation in phase 1 lands on high-salient regions, after which following fixations land on regions with gradually declining salience values; vice versa, the first fixation in phase 2 lands on regions with a low salience value, and following fixations land on regions with an increasing salience value. CC BY license, with permission from F. Walker, VU Amsterdam. Error bars in this and following figures represent standard error of the means.</p

Percentage of ROI’s reported by adults and children in the post phase interviews, presented separately for phase 1 and phase 2.

<p>Compared to children, adults reported a significantly greater percentage of ROI’s. A significantly greater percentage of ROI’s was reported in phase 2 compared to phase 1. The interaction between group (adults/children) and post phase interview (phase 1/phase 2) was close to significance. CC BY license, with permission from F. Walker, VU Amsterdam.</p

The five art paintings of Van Gogh selected as stimulus material.

<p>A) Daubigny’s Garden (1890). B) View of Auvers (1890). C) Farmhouse (1890). D) Landscape at Twilight (1890). E) Tree Roots (1890). Painting images downloaded from the official website of the Van Gogh Museum, Amsterdam, under a CC BY license, with permission from J. van Kregten, Van Gogh Museum, Amsterdam (Vincent van Gogh Foundation).</p

Percentage of time that adults and children spent in ROI "human", painting Tree Roots.

<p>In phase 1, adults spent more time than children looking at the “human figure”. CC BY license, with permission from F. Walker, VU Amsterdam.</p

Children’s fixation time spent in ROI’s as a percentage of total fixation time spent on painting surface (Time in ROI’s) and total fixation time spent on painting surface (Total time).

<p>Note that the names of the paintings are abbreviated.</p

Salience maps.

<p>The left panels show the original paintings, ordered as in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0178912#pone.0178912.g001" target="_blank">Fig 1</a>. The middle panels show the salience maps, computed by the Salience Toolbox [<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0178912#pone.0178912.ref013" target="_blank">13</a>]. The right panels show the final salience maps, used for our analysis; these do not include any inhibitory processes, and are thus smother compared to the maps presented in the middle panels. Painting images downloaded from the official website of the Van Gogh Museum, Amsterdam, under a CC BY license, with permission from J. van Kregten, Van Gogh Museum, Amsterdam (Vincent van Gogh Foundation).</p