» Articles » PMID: 33304301

Reliable Correlational Cuing While Controlling for Most-Recent-Pairing Effects

Overview
Journal Front Psychol
Date 2020 Dec 11
PMID 33304301
Citations 4
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Irrelevant aspects of the environment or irrelevant attributes of task-relevant stimuli can have important and reliable effects on behavior. When the specific values of an irrelevant attribute are correlated with different responses, a correlational-cuing effect is observed: faster and more accurate responses when the correlation is positive. Previous work has shown that this effect is not due to simple differences in how often the specific stimuli or attributes are being presented, and most explanations of the effect have stressed the clear parallels with classical associative learning. There are alternative explanations, however, that center on instances, episodes, or events, instead of associative learning. One such model posits that transient bindings between irrelevant stimulus attributes and responses (i.e., most-recent-pairings) may be responsible for the correlation-cuing effect and some recent work has found no evidence of correlational cuing when most-recent-pairings are taken into account. However, the experimental conditions that were employed previously may not have been optimized for associative learning. A new experiment that was designed to emphasize associative learning was conducted and produced reliable evidence of correlational cuing even when controlling for most-recent-pairing effects.

Citing Articles

Long-term Contingency Learning Depends on Contingency Awareness.

Rothermund K, Kapinos L, De Houwer J, Schmidt J J Cogn. 2025; 8(1):23.

PMID: 39958680 PMC: 11827565. DOI: 10.5334/joc.433.


Context-specific adaptation for head fakes in basketball: a study on player-specific fake-frequency schedules.

Guldenpenning I, Boer N, Kunde W, Giesen C, Rothermund K, Weigelt M Psychol Res. 2024; 88(5):1702-1711.

PMID: 38806734 PMC: 11281954. DOI: 10.1007/s00426-024-01977-2.


Task switch costs scale with dissimilarity between task rules.

Bustos B, Mordkoff J, Hazeltine E, Jiang J J Exp Psychol Gen. 2024; 153(7):1873-1886.

PMID: 38695804 PMC: 11250929. DOI: 10.1037/xge0001598.


One Link to Link Them All.

Arunkumar M, Rothermund K, Giesen C Exp Psychol. 2024; .

PMID: 38288913 PMC: 10918695. DOI: 10.1027/1618-3169/a000597.


Accounting for Proportion Congruency Effects in the Stroop Task in a Confounded Setup: Retrieval of Stimulus-Response Episodes Explains it All.

Rothermund K, Gollnick N, Giesen C J Cogn. 2022; 5(1):39.

PMID: 36072098 PMC: 9400611. DOI: 10.5334/joc.232.

References
1.
Simon J, Rudell A . Auditory S-R compatibility: the effect of an irrelevant cue on information processing. J Appl Psychol. 1967; 51(3):300-4. DOI: 10.1037/h0020586. View

2.
Frings C, Rothermund K, Wentura D . Distractor repetitions retrieve previous responses to targets. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2007; 60(10):1367-77. DOI: 10.1080/17470210600955645. View

3.
Mordkoff J, Halterman R . Feature integration without visual attention: evidence from the correlated flankers task. Psychon Bull Rev. 2008; 15(2):385-9. DOI: 10.3758/pbr.15.2.385. View

4.
Schmidt J, Crump M, Cheesman J, Besner D . Contingency learning without awareness: evidence for implicit control. Conscious Cogn. 2006; 16(2):421-35. DOI: 10.1016/j.concog.2006.06.010. View

5.
Irwin D, Pachella R . Effects of stimulus probability and visual similarity on stimulus encoding. Am J Psychol. 1985; 98(1):85-100. View