Abstract

Four experiments with human subjects examined the cue-interaction effects using a computer-controlled predictive learning task. In Phase 1, subjects learned that cue P was consistently associated with the occurrence of an outcome (P+), whereas cue N was never followed by the outcome (N−). In Phase 2, two neutral cues, R and I, were compounded with P and N, respectively. Each compound was followed by the outcome (PR+ and NI+). Thus, cue R was compounded with the already predictive cue P, whereas cue I was compounded with the non-predictive cue N. In each phase, subjects rated the contingency between the different cues and the outcome. In experiments 1 and 2, the spatial position of the cues was fixed, whereas it was variable in experiments 3, 4a and 4b. Verbal cues were used in experiments 1–3, whereas the cues consisted of geometrical figures in experiments 4a and 4b. Evidence for cue interaction, as indicated by giving cue I a higher contingency rating than cue R after or during Phase 2, was only found under the conditions of experiments 1 and 2. The results indicate that the use of positional cues facilitates the occurrence of cue-interaction effects. Possible reasons for this finding are discussed.

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

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.