September 2019
Volume 19, Issue 10
Open Access
Vision Sciences Society Annual Meeting Abstract  |   September 2019
Distinguishing Between Punishment vs Negative Reinforcement in the Control of Attention
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Brian A Anderson
    Department of Psychological & Brain Sciences, Texas A&M University
  • Haena Kim
    Department of Psychological & Brain Sciences, Texas A&M University
  • Mark K Britton
    Department of Psychological & Brain Sciences, Texas A&M University
  • Andy J Kim
    Department of Psychological & Brain Sciences, Texas A&M University
Journal of Vision September 2019, Vol.19, 53a. doi:https://doi.org/10.1167/19.10.53a
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Brian A Anderson, Haena Kim, Mark K Britton, Andy J Kim; Distinguishing Between Punishment vs Negative Reinforcement in the Control of Attention. Journal of Vision 2019;19(10):53a. doi: https://doi.org/10.1167/19.10.53a.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Stimuli associated with aversive outcomes such as shock and monetary loss automatically capture attention. In many common experimental paradigms, aversive outcomes can be either avoided with fast and accurate responses or are unrelated to behavior and probabilistic, meaning that the stimuli associated with such outcomes are also associated with the occasional withholding of an anticipated aversive event. It therefore remains unclear whether the resulting attentional biases are driven by learning from trials on which aversive outcomes are delivered (punishment learning) or withheld (negative reinforcement), and by extension what mechanism of learning is responsible shaping the attention system. In the present study, we provide two sources of converging evidence demonstrating that learning from punishment dominates over learning from negative reinforcement when the two sources of learning compete against each other. First, in an antisaccade task, one target color predicted a possible shock, which could be averted by a fast and accurate eye movement away from the stimulus. Thus, rapid eye movements away from the stimulus were negatively reinforced. A subsequent test phase involving prosaccades to a shape-defined target provided strong evidence for a bias towards the shock-associated color -- with participants making slower and more frequently erroneous saccades to the target when coupled with a previously shock-associated distractor--even though such behavior was opposite that which was previously required to avert shock. In a second experiment, participants probabilistically received a shock immediately upon fixating one of two color distractors in an additional singleton task. Rather than this contingency reducing distractor fixations, which would have been the adaptive behavioral response, aversive outcomes ironically led to greater interference from, and more frequent saccades on, the shock-associated stimulus, directly leading to more total shocks. Altogether, our findings highlight a powerful role for learning from punishment in the shaping of attentional priority.

Acknowledgement: NARSAD Young Investigator Grant 26008 
×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×