Dissociations among ABA, ABC, and AAB recovery effects

In a human predictive learning experiment, the strengths of ABA, ABC, and AAB recovery effects after discrimination reversal learning were compared. Initially, a discrimination between two stimuli (X+, Y−) was trained in Context A. During Phase 2, participants received discrimination reversal training (X−, Y+) either in Context A (Group AAB) or in Context B (Group ABA, Group ABC). Testing occurred in the reversal context and in a neutral context (Group AAB, Group ABC) or in the reversal context and in the acquisition context (Group ABA). Recovery effects were similar in ABA and ABC procedures, whereas no AAB recovery effect occurred. Furthermore, the rate of discrimination reversal learning during Phase 2 was unaffected by whether training was conducted in the same or in a different context as initial learning. Results indicate that contextual stimuli are processed before interfering information is presented. These representations, however, do not acquire the ability to control performance.     

Some determinants of latent inhibition in human predictive learning

The present experiments assessed the effects of different manipulations between cue preexposure and cue-outcome pairings on latent inhibition (LI) in a predictive learning task with human participants. To facilitate LI, preexposure and acquisition with the target cues took place while participants performed a secondary task. Presentation of neither the target cues nor the target outcome was anticipated based on the instructions. Experiment 1 demonstrated the LI effect in the new experimental preparation. Experiment 2 analyzed the impact on LI of different activities that participants performed during the interval between preexposure and acquisition. Experiment 3 assessed LI as a function of changes in the secondary task cues made between preexposure and acquisition, namely presenting novel cues and reversing the cue-outcome contingencies. All of the manipulations in Experiments 2 and 3 resulted in a decrease in LI. The attenuation of LI by these manipulations challenges most current theories of learning and is best accommodated by Conditioned Attention Theory (Lubow, Weiner, & Schnur, 1981).     

关于评价中心若干问题的探讨

本文对评价中心的定义、评价中心与心理测验的比较、评价中心的预测效度以及影响评价中心成功实施的原因等问题,进行了综合分析和初步探讨,从而帮助人们能够正确地认识评价中心,有效地使用评价中心;同时,也为人们对评价中心的研究和改革,提供了理论和实践方面的依据。     

现实预期和意愿预期在文本阅读中的激活强度

文本阅读中,读者往往对事件的后续发展进行预期推理。预期推理有两种倾向,要么是倾向于根据客观现实条件进行的现实预期,要么是倾向于根据主观个人意愿进行的意愿预期。两个实验探讨了文本阅读中读者产生的现实预期和意愿预期的激活强度。结果发现,现实预期和意愿预期都可以在阅读中即时产生,意愿预期强于现实预期;把读者分为"情感导向型"和"非情感导向型",发现"情感导向型"的读者,阅读过程中产生的意愿预期强于现实预期,而"非情感导向型"的读者则不是。     

The effects of predictive ability information,locus of control,and decision maker involvement on decision aid reliance

This study examines several factors that influence decision makers' willingness to rely on mechanical decision aids. The first experiment examined the effects of predictive ability information and locus of control on decision aid reliance. The results indicate that decision makers were more likely to rely on a decision aid when its predictive validity was not disclosed. Further, decision makers with an external locus of control relied more on the decision aid than those with an internal locus of control. The second experiment expanded upon this result to examine the interactive effects of decision maker involvement and locus of control. The results suggest that involving decision makers in the aid's development enhanced reliance. However, decision makers with an internal locus of control were more strongly influenced by this form of involvement (in terms of increasing their reliance on the decision aid) than decision makers with an external locus of control. Copyright 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The predictive accuracy of intertemporal‐choice models

How do people choose between a smaller reward available sooner and a larger reward available later? Past research has evaluated models of intertemporal choice by measuring goodness of fit or identifying which decision‐making anomalies they can accommodate. An alternative criterion for model quality, which is partly antithetical to these standard criteria, is predictive accuracy. We used cross‐validation to examine how well 10 models of intertemporal choice could predict behaviour in a 100‐trial binary‐decision task. Many models achieved the apparent ceiling of 85% accuracy, even with smaller training sets. When noise was added to the training set, however, a simple logistic‐regression model we call the difference model performed particularly well. In many situations, between‐model differences in predictive accuracy may be small, contrary to long‐standing controversy over the modelling question in research on intertemporal choice, but the simplicity and robustness of the difference model recommend it to future use.     

Introduction

The papers in this special issue make important contributions to a longstanding debate about how we should conceive of and explain mental phenomena. In other words, they make a case about the best philosophical paradigm for cognitive science. The two main competing approaches, hotly debated for several decades, are representationalism and enactivism. However, recent developments in disciplines such as machine learning and computational neuroscience have fostered a proliferation of intermediate approaches, leading to the emergence of completely new positions, in particular the Predictive Processing approach. Here, we will consider the different approaches discussed in this volume.     

Attention and expectation in human predictive learning: The role of uncertainty

Three localized, visual pattern stimuli were trained as predictive signals of auditory outcomes. One signal partially predicted an aversive noise in Experiment 1 and a neutral tone in Experiment 2, whereas the other signals consistently predicted either the occurrence or absence of the noise. The expectation of the noise was measured during each signal presentation, and only participants for whom this expectation demonstrated contingency knowledge showed differential attention to the signals. Importantly, when attention was measured by visual fixations, the contingency-aware group attended more to the partially predictive signal than to the consistent predictors in both experiments. This profile of visual attention supports the Pearce and Hall (1980) Pearce, J. M. and Hall, G. 1980. A model for Pavlovian learning: Variations in the effectiveness of conditioned but not unconditioned stimuli. Psychological Review, 87: 532–552. [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar] theory of the role of attention in associative learning.     

Comparing positive and negative patterning in human learning

In human causal learning, positive patterning (PP) and negative patterning (NP) discriminations are often acquired at roughly the same rate, whereas PP is learned faster than NP in most experiments with nonhuman animals. One likely reason for this discrepancy is that most causal learning scenarios encourage participants to treat the presentation and omission of the relevant outcome as two events of comparable significance and likelihood. To investigate this, the current experiments compared PP and NP using a predictive learning paradigm based on a mock gambling task. In Experiment 1, one outcome (winning) was made more salient by being less frequent than the alternative outcome (losing). Under these circumstances, PP was learned faster than NP. In Experiment 2, subjects learned two PP and two NP discriminations, one involved win versus no change outcomes, the other involved lose versus no change outcomes. The subjects learned PP faster than NP, but only when discriminating win from no change. We argue that a difference in difficulty between PP and NP relies on a difference in the salience of the outcomes, consistent with the predictions of a relatively simple model of associative learning.