A Quantitative Relationship between Signal Detection in Attention and Approach/Avoidance Behavior

2009

Abstract Many biological models of human motivation and behavior posit a functional division between those subsystems responsible for approach and avoidance behaviors. Gray and Mc-Naughton's (2000) revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (RST) casts this distinction in terms of a Behavioral Activation System (BAS) and a Fight-Flight-Freeze System (FFFS), mediated by a third, conflict resolution system-the Behavioral Inhibition System (BIS). They argued that these are fundamental, functionally distinct systems.

Emotion, 2008

The authors show that predispositions to approach and avoid do not consist simply of specific motor patterns but are more abstract functions that produce a desired environmental effect. It has been claimed that evaluating a visual stimulus as positive or negative evokes a specific motor response, extending the arm to negative stimuli, and contracting to positive stimuli. The authors showed that a large congruency effect (participants were faster to approach pleasant and avoid unpleasant stimuli, than to approach unpleasant and avoid pleasant stimuli) could be produced on a novel touchscreen paradigm (Experiment 1), and that the congruency effect could be reversed by spatial (Experiment 2) and nonspatial (Experiment 3) response effects. Thus, involuntary approach and avoid response activations are not fixed, but sensitive to context, and are specifically based on the desired goal.

Learning & Behavior, 2010

It has long been acknowledged that discrimination training of the kind AX BX results not only in the stimuli involved acquiring different levels of associative strength, but also in changes in the attention they are paid. Over 50 years ago, Lawrence (1949) proposed that this arrangement results in stimuli that are relevant to the discrimination being paid more attention than are irrelevant stimuli. The discrimination above, where A is relevant because it consistently signals reinforcement (S) and B is relevant because it consistently signals nonreinforcement (S), raises the question of whether attention to the former, to the latter, or to both stimuli will be enhanced by this training. At a theoretical level, the answer to this question would appear to be that attention to both cues will be enhanced. Sutherland and Mackintosh (1971) proposed that if a stimulus successfully predicts the outcome of a trial, attention to that stimulus and all other exemplars from the same dimension will increase. Since both S and S meet this requirement, there should be an increase in attention to both. Mackintosh (1975) proposed that attention will increase to a stimulus that is the best predictor of the trial outcome and will generalize to other, similar stimuli. Although the trial outcome was generally regarded as being the presence, rather than the absence, of reinforcement, Mackintosh (1975, p. 288; see also Le Pelley, 2004) acknowledged that his proposals could equally well apply to stimuli that are the best predictors of nonreinforcement. Although there is a growing body of evidence to suggest that attention will be high to stimuli that consistently signal reinforcement (Pearce & Mackintosh, 2010, provide a recent review), there is less evidence showing that attention to stimuli that consistently signal nonreinforcement will also be high. The purpose of the two experiments reported here, therefore, was to determine whether more attention is paid to a stimulus that is a reliable signal for nonreinforcement than to an irrelevant stimulus. If changes in attention occur during discrimination learning, they should be reflected in new learning when the stimuli are used in a different task. However, it is necessary to show that any apparent differences in the associability of these stimuli (the ease with which they are subsequently learned about) are not simply the result of associations acquired during the original training. This problem has been tackled in two main ways. The first involves training subjects, after an initial discrimination has been acquired, with the same stimuli but a different response requirement. In an early experiment of this kind, Lawrence (1949) trained rats to choose between two arms of a maze, which differed in size, brightness, and texture. Only one of these dimensions was relevant, such that approaching one cue (S) from this dimension was reinforced but approaching the other (S) was nonreinforced. Subjects were then transferred to a new task where turning left in the presence of one of the cues from the original training and right in the presence of the other cue from the same dimension was reinforced. Lawrence found that the new discrimination was acquired more readily when the cues had been relevant, rather than irrelevant, for the first discrimination. Because the acquisition of the responses for the new discrimination was intended to be unaffected by the associations formed during the initial training, it was concluded that the original training resulted in more attention being paid to relevant than to irrelevant stimuli. However, it is not clear from Lawrence's result whether attention was enhanced to both relevant cues (S and S) during the original training or just to S .

2007

The dot probe task is often used to assess attentional bias in anxiety, but some aspects need clarification. First, the results, which are traditionally summarized in an attentional bias index, do not allow for distinguishing between different selective attention processes; orienting and disengagement. Second, different versions of the dot probe task have been used with unknown relative merits. Participants ðN ¼ 133Þ completed two versions of the dot probe task: the detection task (i.e. is there a probe?) and the differentiation task (i.e. what sort of probe is it?). The analysis carried out allowed for a differentiation between orienting and disengagement. The main finding was that trait anxiety is related to disengagement difficulties and not to speed of orienting. Concerning the relative merits of the two dot probe task versions, the results suggest that the detection task may be superior to the differentiation task. Implications for past and future research are discussed. r

Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research, 2006

The influence of a peripheral cue represented by a gray ring on responsivity to a subsequent target varies. When a vertical line inside a ring was a go target and a white small ring inside a ring was a no-go target, reaction time was shorter at the same location relative to a different location. However, no reaction time difference between the two locations occurred when a white cross inside the ring, instead of the white vertical line inside the ring, was the go target. We investigated whether this last finding was due to a forward masking influence of the cue, a requirement of low attention for the discrimination or a lack of attention mobilization by the cue. In Experiment 1, the intensity of the cue was reduced in an attempt to reduce forward masking. In Experiment 2, the vertical line and the cross were presented in the same block of trials so as to be dealt with a common attentional strategy. In Experiments 3 and 4, the no-go target was a 45º rotated cross inside a ring to increase the difficulty of the discrimination. No evidence was obtained that the cross was forward masked by the cue nor that it demanded less attention to be discriminated from the small ring. There was a facilitation of responsivity by the cue when the small ring was replaced by the rotated cross. The results suggest that when the discrimination to be performed is too easy the cue does not mobilize attention.