Evidence for feature and location learning in human visual perceptual learning

  1. María Manuela Moreno-Fernández 1
  2. Nurizzati Mohd Salleh 2
  3. Jose Prados 2
  1. 1 Universidad de Jaén, Spain
  2. 2 University of Leicester, UK
Aldizkaria:
Psicológica: Revista de metodología y psicología experimental

ISSN: 1576-8597

Argitalpen urtea: 2015

Alea: 36

Zenbakia: 2

Orrialdeak: 185-204

Mota: Artikulua

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openSarbide irekia editor

Beste argitalpen batzuk: Psicológica: Revista de metodología y psicología experimental

Laburpena

In Experiment 1, human participants were pre-exposed to two similar checkerboard grids (AX and X) in alternation, and to a third grid (BX) in a separate block of trials. In a subsequent test, the unique feature A was better detected than the feature B when they were presented in the same location during the pre-exposure and test phases. However, when the locations of the features were swapped during the test (A was tested in the location occupied by B during pre-exposure and vice versa), B was detected better than A, suggesting that intermixed pre-exposure enhances the attention paid to the location of the unique features rather than the features themselves. In Experiment 2, participants were given intermixed or blocked pre-exposure to AX and X, and were then required to detect the differences between pairs of stimuli containing either the pre-exposed unique feature A or a new feature, N, presented in a familiar location (used for pre-exposure) or a new location within the checkerboard grid. Participants that were given intermixed pre-exposure showed a facilitated capacity to detect A than N, and detected better the unique features in the familiar than in the new location. In contrast, participants in the blocked condition did not show any effect of feature or location. These results provide evidence that both location and feature learning processes take place during intermixed (but not blocked) pre-exposure.

Erreferentzia bibliografikoak

  • Artigas, A. A., Sansa, J., & Prados, J. (2006). The Espinet and the perceptual learning effects in flavour aversion conditioning: Do they depend on a common inhibitory mechanism? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 471-481.
  • Dwyer, D. M., Hodder, K. I., & Honey, R. C. (2004) Perceptual learning in humans: Roles of preexposure schedule, feedback, and discrimination assay. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57B, 245-259.
  • Hall, G. (2003). Learned changes in the sensitivity of stimulus representations: Associative and nonassociative mechanisms. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56B, 43-55.
  • Honey, R. C., & Bateson, P. (1996). Stimulus comparison and perceptual learning: Further evidence and evaluation from an imprinting procedure. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49B, 259-269.
  • Honey, R. C., Bateson, P., & Horn, G. (1994). The role of stimulus comparison in perceptual learning: An investigation with the domestic chick. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47B, 83-103.
  • Jones, S. P., & Dwyer, D. M. (2013). Perceptual learning with complex visual stimuli is based on location, rather than content, of discriminating features. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 39, 152-165.
  • Lavis, Y, Kadib, R., Mitchell, C., & Hall, G. (2011). Memory for, and salience of, the unique features of similar stimuli in perceptual learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 37, 211-219.
  • Lavis, Y., & Mitchell, C. (2006). Effects of preexposure on stimulus discrimination: An investigation of the mechanisms responsible for human perceptual learning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59 (12), 2083-2101.
  • McLaren, I. P. L., & Mackintosh, N. J. (2000). An elemental model of associative learning: I. Latent inhibition and perceptual learning. Animal Learning & Behavior, 28, 211-246.
  • Mitchell, C., & Hall, G. (2014). Can theories of animal discrimination explain perceptual learning in humans? Psychological Bulletin, 140, 283-307.
  • Mitchell, C., Kadib, R., Nash, S., Lavis, Y, & Hall, G. (2008). Analysis of the role of associative inhibition in perceptual learning by means of the same-different task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 34, 475-485.
  • Moreno-Fernandez, M. M., Prados, J., Marshall, T., & Artigas, A. A. (2010). Same/Different tasks in visual perceptual learning in humans. Paper presented at the XXII International Congress of the Spanish Society of Comparative Psychology. Almeria, Spain, September 2010.
  • Prados, J., Artigas, A. A., & Sansa, J. (2007). Preexposure effects in the spatial domain: Dissociation between latent inhibition and perceptual learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 33, 115-123.
  • Symonds, M., & Hall, G. (1995). Perceptual learning in flavor aversion conditioning: Roles of stimulus comparison and latent inhibition of common stimulus elements. Learning and Motivation, 26, 203-219.
  • Wagner, A. R. (1981). A model of automatic memory processing in animal behavior. In N. E. Spear & R. R. Miller (Eds.), Information processing in animals: Memory mechanisms (pp. 5-47). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Wang, T., Lavis, Y., Hall, G., & Mitchell, C. (2012). Location and salience of unique features in human perceptual learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal behavior Processes, 38, 407-418.
  • Wang, T., & Mitchell, C. (2011). Attention and relative novelty in human perceptual learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 37, 436-445.
Datuen iturria: Dialnet