Literature DB >> 28000115

Tied to expectations: Predicting features speeds processing even under adverse circumstances.

Sabine Schwager1, Robert Gaschler2,3, Dennis Rünger4, Peter A Frensch3,5.   

Abstract

When participants predict the upcoming stimulus in a randomized choice reaction task, a match between prediction and stimulus increases processing speed at a level similar to that observed in cueing studies with highly valid cues. This might be taken to suggest that people cannot help but fully use their self-generated, verbalized predictions for preparing task processing. Thus, we tested how flexibly participants can control formation and implementation of predictions. In Experiment 1, we varied validity and response-relevance of predictions. We observed that prediction effects on RT can be boosted by increasing validity, but prevail under adverse circumstances. This was not the case in a control group who read rather than predicted the feature words, suggesting that the effect was specific to predictions as such. Experiment 2 provided further evidence for limited control of participants over implementing and forming predictions. Participants were provided with practice on stimuli occurring with varying frequency, but neither learned to strategically choose predictions to maximize the number of match trials, nor did they reduce the amount of prediction-based preparation when predicting an infrequent stimulus. As sequential aftereffects of prediction match did not vary with validity, they were identified as an independent effect of verbalizing a response-relevant stimulus feature. The results are consistent with the view that the predicted stimulus feature is represented in the focus of attention in working memory and that the amount of implementation can be subject to weighting.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Expectations; Predictions; Strategic control; Task preparation

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28000115     DOI: 10.3758/s13421-016-0683-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mem Cognit        ISSN: 0090-502X


  31 in total

1.  It is not what you expect: dissociating conflict adaptation from expectancies in a Stroop task.

Authors:  Luis Jiménez; Amavia Méndez
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2012-03-19       Impact factor: 3.332

Review 2.  Representing serial action and perception.

Authors:  Elger L Abrahamse; Luis Jiménez; Willem B Verwey; Benjamin A Clegg
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2010-10

3.  The benefit of expecting no conflict--Stronger influence of self-generated than cue-induced conflict expectations on Stroop performance.

Authors:  Maike Kemper; Robert Gaschler; Sabine Schwager; Torsten Schubert
Journal:  Acta Psychol (Amst)       Date:  2015-11-30

4.  The soft constraints hypothesis: a rational analysis approach to resource allocation for interactive behavior.

Authors:  Wayne D Gray; Chris R Sims; Wai-Tat Fu; Michael J Schoelles
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 8.934

5.  Feature integration without visual attention: evidence from the correlated flankers task.

Authors:  J Toby Mordkoff; Rose Halterman
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2008-04

6.  Decoding attended information in short-term memory: an EEG study.

Authors:  Joshua J LaRocque; Jarrod A Lewis-Peacock; Andrew T Drysdale; Klaus Oberauer; Bradley R Postle
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 3.225

7.  Prediction during statistical learning, and implications for the implicit/explicit divide.

Authors:  Rick Dale; Nicholas D Duran; J Ryan Morehead
Journal:  Adv Cogn Psychol       Date:  2012-05-21

8.  Instructed task demands and utilization of action effect anticipation.

Authors:  Robert Gaschler; Dieter Nattkemper
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2012-12-28

9.  Combined expectancies: electrophysiological evidence for the adjustment of expectancy effects.

Authors:  Uwe Mattler; Arie van der Lugt; Thomas F Münte
Journal:  BMC Neurosci       Date:  2006-05-04       Impact factor: 3.288

10.  What I Say is What I Get: Stronger Effects of Self-Generated vs. Cue-Induced Expectations in Event-Related Potentials.

Authors:  Maike Kemper; Valentin J Umbach; Sabine Schwager; Robert Gaschler; Peter A Frensch; Birgit Stürmer
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2012-12-14
View more
  1 in total

1.  Self-Generated or Cue-Induced-Different Kinds of Expectations to Be Considered.

Authors:  Maike Kemper; Robert Gaschler
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2017-01-24
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.