Abstract

We conducted a human fear conditioning experiment in which three different color cues were followed by an aversive electric shock on 0, 50, and 100% of the trials, and thus induced low (L), partial (P), and high (H) shock expectancy, respectively. The cues differed with respect to the strength of their shock association (L < P < H) and the uncertainty of their prediction (L < P > H). During conditioning we measured pupil dilation and ocular fixations to index differences in the attentional processing of the cues. After conditioning, the shock-associated colors were introduced as irrelevant distracters during visual search for a shape target while shocks were no longer administered and we analyzed the cues’ potential to capture and hold overt attention automatically. Our findings suggest that fear conditioning creates an automatic attention bias for the conditioned cues that depends on their correlation with the aversive outcome. This bias was exclusively linked to the strength of the cues’ shock association for the early attentional processing of cues in the visual periphery, but additionally was influenced by the uncertainty of the shock prediction after participants fixated on the cues. These findings are in accord with attentional learning theories that formalize how associative learning shapes automatic attention.

Highlights

  • IntroductionAttention research has focused on the conceptual dichotomy of bottom-up (exogenous) versus top-down (endogenous) processing (Wolfe et al, 1989; Desimone and Duncan, 1995; Itti and Koch, 2001; Corbetta and Shulman, 2002)

  • For a long time, attention research has focused on the conceptual dichotomy of bottom-up versus top-down processing (Wolfe et al, 1989; Desimone and Duncan, 1995; Itti and Koch, 2001; Corbetta and Shulman, 2002)

  • Our analysis suggests that participants encoded values of both, the strength of the shock associations and the uncertainty of predicting shock

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Attention research has focused on the conceptual dichotomy of bottom-up (exogenous) versus top-down (endogenous) processing (Wolfe et al, 1989; Desimone and Duncan, 1995; Itti and Koch, 2001; Corbetta and Shulman, 2002) From this perspective, stimuli in our sensory environment attract attention because they are either of high physical salience, or their selection is relevant for performing a task (goal-directed, strategic selection). In several recent studies (Anderson et al, 2011a,b; Anderson and Yantis, 2012; Le Pelley et al, 2015), a specific color was repeatedly paired with monetary gain to establish an association between that color and reward Following this training, the same color was introduced as a task-irrelevant distracter during search for a shape target, while reward was no longer available. Reward-associated color distracters captured attention automatically and strongly interfered with finding the shape target

Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call