Blocking and backward blocking involve learned inattention
- PMID: 11206204
- DOI: 10.3758/bf03213001
Blocking and backward blocking involve learned inattention
Abstract
Four experiments examine blocking of associative learning by human participants in a disease diagnosis procedure. The results indicate that after a cue is blocked, subsequent learning about the cue is attenuated. This attenuated learning after blocking is obtained for both standard blocking and for backward blocking. Attenuated learning after blocking cannot be accounted for by theories such as the Rescorla-Wagner model that rely on lack of learning about a redundant cue, nor can it be accounted for by extensions of the Rescorla-Wagner model designed to address backward blocking that encode absent cues with negative values. The results are predicted by the hypothesis that people learn not to attend to the blocked cue.
Similar articles
-
Blocking in rabbit eyeblink conditioning is not due to learned inattention: indirect support for an error correction mechanism of blocking.Integr Physiol Behav Sci. 2002 Oct-Dec;37(4):254-64. doi: 10.1007/BF02734248. Integr Physiol Behav Sci. 2002. PMID: 12645843
-
Asymmetries in cue competition in forward and backward blocking designs: Further evidence for causal model theory.Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2007 Mar;60(3):387-99. doi: 10.1080/17470210601000839. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2007. PMID: 17366307
-
The influence of blocking on overt attention and associability in human learning.J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 2011 Jan;37(1):114-20. doi: 10.1037/a0019526. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 2011. PMID: 20718547
-
A combination of common and individual error terms is not needed to explain associative changes when cues with different training histories are conditioned in compound: A review of Rescorla's compound test procedure.J Exp Psychol Anim Learn Cogn. 2019 Apr;45(2):242-256. doi: 10.1037/xan0000204. J Exp Psychol Anim Learn Cogn. 2019. PMID: 30945928 Review.
-
A comparator-hypothesis account of biased contingency detection.Behav Processes. 2018 Sep;154:45-51. doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2018.02.009. Epub 2018 Feb 12. Behav Processes. 2018. PMID: 29447853 Review.
Cited by
-
Redundancy matters: flexible learning of multiple contingencies in infants.Cognition. 2013 Feb;126(2):156-64. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2012.09.016. Epub 2012 Nov 9. Cognition. 2013. PMID: 23142036 Free PMC article.
-
People want to see information that will help them make valid inferences in human causal learning.Mem Cognit. 2006 Jul;34(5):1133-9. doi: 10.3758/bf03193259. Mem Cognit. 2006. PMID: 17128611
-
Dissecting EXIT.J Math Psychol. 2020 Aug;97:102371. doi: 10.1016/j.jmp.2020.102371. Epub 2020 May 12. J Math Psychol. 2020. PMID: 35571864 Free PMC article.
-
Blocking in rabbit eyeblink conditioning is not due to learned inattention: indirect support for an error correction mechanism of blocking.Integr Physiol Behav Sci. 2002 Oct-Dec;37(4):254-64. doi: 10.1007/BF02734248. Integr Physiol Behav Sci. 2002. PMID: 12645843
-
Blocking a redundant cue: what does it say about preschoolers' causal competence?Dev Sci. 2013 Sep;16(5):713-27. doi: 10.1111/desc.12047. Epub 2013 Jun 11. Dev Sci. 2013. PMID: 24033577 Free PMC article.