Statistical learning facilitates the strategic use of attentional control

Aversive conditioning, anxiety, and the strategic control of attention

What we pay attention to is influenced by both reward learning and aversive conditioning. Although early attention tends to be biased toward aversively conditioned stimuli, sustained ignoring of such stimuli is also possible. How aversive conditioning influences how a person chooses to search, or the strategic control of attention, has not been explored. In the present study, participants learned an association between a colour and an aversive outcome during a training phase, and in a subsequent test phase searched for one of two targets presented on each trial; one target was rendered in the aversively conditioned colour (CS+) and the other in a neutral colour (CS-). Given the distribution of colour stimuli in the search array, it was more optimal to search for and report a target in one of the two colours on some trials. Our results demonstrate that participants were biased away from the CS+ target, which resulted in non-optimal search on some trials. Surprisingly, rather than accentuate this bias, greater state anxiety was associated with a stronger tendency to find and report the CS+ target. Our findings have implications for our understanding of the learning-dependent control of attention and abnormal attentional biases observed in high-anxious individuals.

Trichotomy revisited: A monolithic theory of attentional control

The control of attention was long held to reflect the influence of two competing mechanisms of assigning priority, one goal-directed and the other stimulus-driven. Learning-dependent influences on the control of attention that could not be attributed to either of those two established mechanisms of control gave rise to the concept of selection history and a corresponding third mechanism of attentional control. The trichotomy framework that ensued has come to dominate theories of attentional control over the past decade, replacing the historical dichotomy. In this theoretical review, I readily affirm that distinctions between the influence of goals, salience, and selection history are substantive and meaningful, and that abandoning the dichotomy between goal-directed and stimulus-driven mechanisms of control was appropriate. I do, however, question whether a theoretical trichotomy is the right answer to the problem posed by selection history. If we reframe the influence of goals and selection history as different flavors of memory-dependent modulations of attentional priority and if we characterize the influence of salience as a consequence of insufficient competition from such memory-dependent sources of priority, it is possible to account for a wide range of attention-related phenomena with only one mechanism of control. The monolithic framework for the control of attention that I propose offers several concrete advantages over a trichotomy framework, which I explore here.