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 (a) a target (that defined correct responding), (b) a stimulus that was perfectly correlated with the presentation of the target, and (c) a stimulus that was uncorrelated with the presentation of the target. Participants' knowledge of the associative relationship between the correlated or uncorrelated stimuli and the target was always good. However, eye-tracking revealed that an attentional bias toward 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.