The role of prediction in learned predictiveness.

Learning permits even relatively uninteresting stimuli to capture attention if they are established as predictors of important outcomes. Associative theories explain this “learned predictiveness” effect by positing that attention is a function of the relative strength of the association between stimuli and outcomes. In three experiments we show that this explanation is incomplete: learned overt visual-attention is not a function of the relative strength of the association between stimuli and an outcome. In three experiments, human participants were exposed to triplets of stimuli that comprised (i) a target (which defined correct responding), (ii) a stimulus which was perfectly correlated with the presentation of the target and (iii) a stimulus which was uncorrelated with the presentation of the target. Participants’ knowledge of the associative relationship between the correlated/uncorrelated stimuli and the target was always good. However, eye-tracking revealed that an attentional bias towards the correlated stimulus only developed when it AND target-relevant responding preceded the target stimulus. We propose a framework in which attentional changes are modulated during learning as a function the relative strength of the association between stimuli and the task-relevant response, rather than an association between stimuli and the task-relevant outcome

Learned changes in outcome associability

When a cue reliably predicts an outcome, the associability of that cue will change. Associative theories of learning propose this change will persist even when the same cue is paired with a different outcome. These theories, however, do not extend the same privilege to an outcome; an outcome’s learning history is deemed to have no bearing on subsequent new learning involving that outcome. Two experiments were conducted which sought to investigate this assumption inherent in these theories using a serial letter-prediction task. In both experiments participants were exposed, in Stage 1, to a predictable outcome (‘X’) and an unpredictable outcome (‘Z’). In Stage 2 participants were exposed to the same outcomes preceded by novel cues which were equally predictive of both outcomes. Both experiments revealed that participants’ learning toward the previously predictable outcome was more rapid in Stage 2 than the previously unpredicted outcome. The implications of these results for theories of associative learning are discussed

Local Dot Motion, Not Global Configuration, Determines Dogs\u2019 Preference for Point-Light Displays

Visual perception remains an understudied area of dog cognition, particularly the perception of biological motion where the small amount of previous research has created an unclear impression regarding dogs\u2019 visual preference towards different types of point-light displays. To date, no thorough investigation has been conducted regarding which aspects of the motion contained in point-light displays attract dogs. To test this, pet dogs (N = 48) were presented with pairs of point-light displays with systematic manipulation of motion features (i.e., upright or inverted orientation, coherent or scrambled configuration, human or dog species). Results revealed a significant effect of inversion, with dogs directing significantly longer looking time towards upright than inverted dog point-light displays; no effect was found for scrambling or the scrambling-inversion interaction. No looking time bias was found when dogs were presented with human point-light displays, regardless of their orientation or configuration. The results of the current study imply that dogs\u2019 visual preference is driven by the motion of individual dots in accordance with gravity, rather than the point-light display\u2019s global arrangement, regardless their long exposure to human motion