Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-7ccbd9845f-wr4x4 Total loading time: 0.661 Render date: 2023-01-27T12:57:06.094Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true
Formal Approaches in Categorization Formal Approaches in Categorization
Buy print or eBook[Opens in a new window]

Book contents

6 - Models of attentional learning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

By
John K. Kruschke
Edited by
Emmanuel M. Pothos  and
Andy J. Wills
Emmanuel M. Pothos
Affiliation:
Swansea University
Andy J. Wills
Affiliation:
University of Exeter
Get access

Summary

Many theories of learning provide no role for learned selective attention (e.g., Anderson, 1991; Pearce, 1994; Rehder & Murphy, 2003). Selective attention is crucial, however, for explaining many phenomena in learning. The mechanism of selective attention in learning is also well motivated by its ability to minimize proactive interference and enhance generalization, thereby accelerating learning. Therefore, not only does the mechanism help explain behavioural phenomena, it makes sense that it should have evolved (Kruschke & Hullinger, 2010).

The phrase ‘learned selective attention’ denotes three qualities. First, ‘attention’ means the amplification or attenuation of the processing of stimuli. Second, ‘selective’ refers to differentially amplifying and/or attenuating a subset of the components of the stimulus. This selectivity within a stimulus is different from attenuating or amplifying all aspects of a stimulus simultaneously (cf. Larrauri & Schmajuk, 2008). Third, ‘learned’ denotes the idea that the allocation of selective processing is retained for future use. The allocation may be context sensitive, so that attention is allocated differently in different contexts.

There are many phenomena in human and animal learning that suggest the involvement of learned selective attention. The first part of this chapter briefly reviews some of those phenomena. The emphasis of the chapter is not the empirical phenomena, however. Instead, the focus is on a collection of models that formally express theories of learned attention. These models will be surveyed subsequently.

Type
Chapter
Information
Formal Approaches in Categorization , pp. 120 - 152
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Purchase

Buy Book

Buy print or eBook[Opens in a new window]

References

Anderson, J.R. (1991). The adaptive nature of human categorization. Psychological Review, 98 (3), 409–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashby, F.G., Alfonso-Reese, L.A., Turken, A.U., & Waldron, E.M. (1998). A neuropsychological theory of multiple systems in category learning. Psychological Review, 105 (3), 442–481.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Atkinson, R.C., & Estes, W.K. (1963). Stimulus sampling theory. In Luce, R.D., Bush, R.R., & Galanter, E. (eds.), Handbook of Mathematical Psychology. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Chater, N., Tenenbaum, J. B., & Yuille, A. (eds.) (2006). Special issue: probabilistic models of cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10 (7), 287–344.CrossRefPubMed
Courville, A.C., Daw, N.D., & Touretzky, D.S. (2006). Bayesian theories of conditioning in a changing world. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10 (7), 294–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dayan, P., & Kakade, S. (2001). Explaining away in weight space. In Leen, T., Dietterich, T., & Tresp, V. (eds.), Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (Vol. 13, pp. 451–457). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Denton, S.E., & Kruschke, J.K. (2006). Attention and salience in associative blocking. Learning & Behavior, 34 (3), 285–304.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Denton, S.E., Kruschke, J.K., & Erickson, M.A. (2008). Rule-based extrapolation: a continuing challenge for exemplar models. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15 (4), 780–786.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dickinson, A., & Burke, J. (1996). Within-compound associations mediate the retrospective revaluation of causality judgements. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Comparative & Physiological Psychology, 49B, 60–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erickson, M.A. (2008). Executive attention and task switching in category learning: evidence for stimulus-dependent representation. Memory & Cognition, 36 (4), 749–761.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Erickson, M.A., & Kruschke, J.K. (1998). Rules and exemplars in category learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127 (2), 107–140.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Erickson, M. A., (2002). Rule-based extrapolation in perceptual categorization. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9 (1), 160–168.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Estes, W. K. (1962). Learning theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 13 (1), 107–144.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
George, D.N., & Pearce, J.M. (1999). Acquired distinctiveness is controlled by stimulus relevance not correlation with reward. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 25 (3), 363–373.Google Scholar
Goodman, N.D., Tenenbaum, J.B., Feldman, J., & Griffiths, T.L. (2008). A rational analysis of rule-based concept learning. Cognitive Science, 32 (1), 108–154.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hall, G., Mackintosh, N.J., Goodall, G., & Dal Martello, M. (1977). Loss of control by a less valid or by a less salient stimulus compounded with a better predictor of reinforcement. Learning and Motivation, 8, 145–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, J.A. (2006). Elemental representations of stimuli in associative learning. Psychological Review, 113 (3), 584–605.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jacobs, R.A., Jordan, M.I., & Barto, A. (1991). Task decomposition through competition in a modular connectionist architecture: the what and where vision tasks. Cognitive Science, 15, 219–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, R.A., Jordan, M.I., Nowlan, S.J., & Hinton, G.E. (1991). Adaptive mixtures of local experts. Neural Computation, 3, 79–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalish, M.L. (2001). An inverse base rate effect with continuously valued stimuli. Memory & Cognition, 29 (4), 587–597.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kalish, M.L., & Kruschke, J.K. (2000). The role of attention shifts in the categorization of continuous dimensioned stimuli. Psychological Research, 64, 105–116.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kalish, M.L., Lewandowsky, S., & Kruschke, J.K. (2004). Population of linear experts: knowledge partitioning and function learning. Psychological Review, 111 (4), 1072–1099.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kruschke, J.K. (1992). ALCOVE: an exemplar-based connectionist model of category learning. Psychological Review, 99, 22–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kruschke, J. K. (1993). Human category learning: implications for backpropagation models. Connection Science, 5, 3–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruschke, J. K. (1996a). Base rates in category learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 3–26.Google ScholarPubMed
Kruschke, J. K. (1996b). Dimensional relevance shifts in category learning. Connection Science, 8, 201–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruschke, J. K. (2001a). The inverse base rate effect is not explained by eliminative inference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 1385–1400.Google Scholar
Kruschke, J. K. (2001b). Toward a unified model of attention in associative learning. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 45, 812–863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruschke, J. K. (2003a). Attentionally modulated exemplars and exemplar mediated attention. Invited talk at the Seventh International Conference on Cognitive and Neural Systems, Boston University, May 28–31.Google Scholar
Kruschke, J. K. (2003b). Attentionally modulated exemplars and exemplar mediated attention. Keynote Address to the Associative Learning Conference, Gregynog (University of Cardiff) Wales, April 15–17.Google Scholar
Kruschke, J. K. (2003c). Attentional theory is a viable explanation of the inverse base rate effect: a reply to Winman, Wennerholm, and Juslin (2003). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 1396– 1400.Google Scholar
Kruschke, J. K. (2005). Learning involves attention. In Houghton, G. (ed.), Connectionist Models in Cognitive Psychology (pp. 113–140). Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Kruschke, J. K. (2006a). Locally Bayesian learning. In Sun, R. (ed.), Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 453–458). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kruschke, J. K. (2006b). Locally Bayesian learning with applications to retrospective revaluation and highlighting. Psychological Review, 113 (4), 677–699.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kruschke, J. K. (2008). Bayesian approaches to associative learning: from passive to active learning. Learning & Behavior, 36 (3), 210–226.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kruschke, J. K. (2010). Highlighting: a canonical experiment. In B. Ross (ed.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 51, 153–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruschke, J.K., & Blair, N. J. (2000). Blocking and backward blocking involve learned inattention. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7, 636–645.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kruschke, J.K., & Denton, S.E. (2010). Backward blocking of relevance-indicating cues: evidence for locally Bayesian learning. In Mitchell, C.J. & Pelley, M.E. (eds.), Attention and Associative Learning. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kruschke, J.K., & Erickson, M.A. (1994). Learning of rules that have high-frequency exceptions: New empirical data and a hybrid connectionist model. In The Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 514–519). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kruschke, J.K., & Hullinger, R.A. (2010). The evolution of learned attention. In Schmajuk, N. (ed.), Computational Models of Conditioning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kruschke, J.K., & Johansen, M.K. (1999). A model of probabilistic category learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25 (5), 1083–1119.Google ScholarPubMed
Kruschke, J.K., Kappenman, E.S., & Hetrick, W.P. (2005). Eye gaze and individual differences consistent with learned attention in associative blocking and highlighting. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 830–845.Google ScholarPubMed
Larrauri, J.A., & Schmajuk, N.A. (2008). Attentional, associative, and configural mechanisms in extinction. Psychological Review, 115 (3), 640–675.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pelley, M.E., & McLaren, I.P.L. (2003). Learned associability and associative change in human causal learning. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section B, 56 (1), 68–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pelley, M.E., Oakeshott, S.M., Wills, A.J., & McLaren, I.P.L. (2005). The outcome specificity of learned predictiveness effects: parallels between human causal learning and animal conditioning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 31 (2), 226–236.Google ScholarPubMed
Lewandowsky, S., Roberts, L., & Yang, L.X. (2006). Knowledge partitioning in categorization: boundary conditions. Memory & Cognition, 34 (8), 1676–1688.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Little, D.R., & Lewandowsky, S. (2009). Beyond non-utilization: irrelevant cues can gate learning in probabilistic categorization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35 (2), 530–550.Google Scholar
Love, B.C., Medin, D.L., & Gureckis, T.M. (2004). SUSTAIN: a network model of category learning. Psychological Review, 111 (2), 309–332.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mackintosh, N.J. (1975). A theory of attention: variations in the associability of stimuli with reinforcement. Psychological Review, 82, 276–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLaren, I.P.L., & Mackintosh, N.J. (2000). An elemental model of associative learning: I. Latent inhibition and perceptual learning. Animal Learning and Behavior, 28 (3), 211–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLaren, I.P.L., & Mackintosh, N.J. (2002). An elemental model of associative learning: II. Generalization and discrimination. Animal Learning and Behavior, 30, 177–200.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Medin, D.L., & Edelson, S.M. (1988). Problem structure and the use of base-rate information from experience. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 117, 68–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Medin, D.L., & Schaffer, M.M. (1978). Context theory of classification learning. Psychological Review, 85, 207–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nosofsky, R.M. (1986). Attention, similarity, and the identification-categorization relationship. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 115, 39–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nosofsky, R.M., Gluck, M.A., Palmeri, T.J., McKinley, S.C., & Glauthier, P. (1994). Comparing models of rule-based classification learning: a replication of Shepard, Hovland, and Jenkins (1961). Memory & Cognition, 22, 352–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nosofsky, R.M., & Johansen, M.K. (2000). Exemplar-based accounts of ‘multiple-system’ phenomena in perceptual categorization. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7 (3), 375–402.Google ScholarPubMed
Oswald, C.J.P., Yee, B.K., Rawlins, J.N.P., Bannerman, D.B., Good, M., & Honey, R.C. (2001). Involvement of the entorhinal cortex in a process of attentional modulation: evidence from a novel variant of an IDS/EDS procedure. Behavioral Neuroscience, 115 (4), 841–849.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearce, J.M. (1994). Similarity and discrimination: a selective review and a connectionist model. Psychological Review, 101, 587–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pothos, E.M., & Chater, N. (2002). A simplicity principle in unsupervised human categorization. Cognitive Science, 26, 303–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rehder, B., & Murphy, G.L. (2003). A knowledge-resonance (KRES) model of category learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10 (4), 759–784.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rescorla, R.A., & Wagner, A. R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and non-reinforcement. In Black, A.H. & Prokasy, W.F. (eds.), Classical Conditioning II: Current Research and Theory (pp. 64–99). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
Rodrigues, P.M., & Murre, J.M.J. (2007). Rules-plus-exception tasks: a problem for exemplar models?Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 640–646.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rumelhart, D.E., Hinton, G.E., & Williams, R.J. (1986). Learning internal representations by back-propagating errors. In Rumelhart, D.E. & McClelland, J.L. (eds.), Parallel Distributed Processing (Vol. 1). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sanborn, A.N., Griffiths, T.L., & Navarro, D. (2006). A more rational model of categorization. In Sun, R. & Miyake, N. (eds.), Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Shanks, D.R. (1985). Forward and backward blocking in human contingency judgement. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Comparative & Physiological Psychology, 37B, 1–21.Google Scholar
Shepard, R.N., Hovland, C.L., & Jenkins, H.M. (1961). Learning and memorization of classifications. Psychological Monographs, 75 (13), Whole No. 517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slamecka, N.J. (1968). A methodological analysis of shift paradigms in human discrimination learning. Psychological Bulletin, 69, 423–438.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tenenbaum, J.B., & Griffiths, T.L. (2003). Theory-based causal inference. In Becker, S., Thrun, S., & Obermayer, K. (eds.), Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (Vol. 15, pp. 35–42). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Treat, T.A., Kruschke, J.K., Viken, R.J., & McFall, R. M. (2010). Application of associative learning paradigms to clinically relevant individual differences in cognitive processing. In Schachtman, T.R. & Reilly, S. (eds.), Conditioning and Animal Learning: Human and non-Human Animal Applications. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Treat, T.A., McFall, R.M., Viken, R. J., & Kruschke, J.K. (2001). Using cognitive science methods to assess the role of social information processing in sexually coercive behavior. Psychological Assessment, 13 (4), 549–565.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Treat, T.A., McFall, R.M., Viken, R.J., Kruschke, J.K., Nosofsky, R.M., & Wang, S.S. (2007). Clinical cognitive science: applying quantitative models of cognitive processing to examine cognitive aspects of psychopathology. In Neufeld, R.W.J. (ed.), Advances in Clinical Cognitive Science: Formal Modeling of Processes and Symptoms (pp. 179–205). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Vigo, R. (2006). A note on the complexity of Boolean concepts. Journal of MathematicalPsychology, 50, 501–510.Google Scholar
Vigo, R. (2009). Categorical invariance and structural complexity in human concept learning. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 53, 203–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wills, A.J., Lavric, A., Croft, G.S., & Hodgson, T.L. (2007). Predictive learning, prediction errors, and attention: evidence from event-related potentials and eye tracking. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19 (5), 843–854.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yang, L.-X., & Lewandowsky, S. (2003). Context-gated knowledge partitioning in categorization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 29 (4), 663–679.Google ScholarPubMed
Yang, L.-X., & Lewandowsky, S. (2004). Knowledge partitioning in categorization: constraints on exemplar models. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 30 (5), 1045–1064.Google ScholarPubMed
13
Cited by

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×