↓ Skip to main content

No Apparent Influence of Reward upon Visual Statistical Learning

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
No Apparent Influence of Reward upon Visual Statistical Learning
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, November 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01687
Pubmed ID
Authors

Leeland L Rogers, Kyle G Friedman, Timothy J Vickery

Abstract

Humans are capable of detecting and exploiting a variety of environmental regularities, including stimulus-stimulus contingencies (e.g., visual statistical learning) and stimulus-reward contingencies. However, the relationship between these two types of learning is poorly understood. In two experiments, we sought evidence that the occurrence of rewarding events enhances or impairs visual statistical learning. Across all of our attempts to find such evidence, we employed a training stage during which we grouped shapes into triplets and presented triplets one shape at a time in an undifferentiated stream. Participants subsequently performed a surprise recognition task in which they were tested on their knowledge of the underlying structure of the triplets. Unbeknownst to participants, triplets were also assigned no-, low-, or high-reward status. In Experiments 1A and 1B, participants viewed shape streams while low and high rewards were "randomly" given, presented as low- and high-pitched tones played through headphones. Rewards were always given on the third shape of a triplet (Experiment 1A) or the first shape of a triplet (Experiment 1B), and high- and low-reward sounds were always consistently paired with the same triplets. Experiment 2 was similar to Experiment 1, except that participants were required to learn value associations of a subset of shapes before viewing the shape stream. Across all experiments, we observed significant visual statistical learning effects, but the strength of learning did not differ amongst no-, low-, or high-reward conditions for any of the experiments. Thus, our experiments failed to find any influence of rewards on statistical learning, implying that visual statistical learning may be unaffected by the occurrence of reward. The system that detects basic stimulus-stimulus regularities may operate independently of the system that detects reward contingencies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 3%
Unknown 33 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 26%
Student > Bachelor 6 18%
Researcher 5 15%
Student > Master 5 15%
Professor 2 6%
Other 5 15%
Unknown 2 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 18 53%
Neuroscience 8 24%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Sports and Recreations 1 3%
Linguistics 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 5 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 October 2016.
All research outputs
#21,251,718
of 26,096,076 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#25,994
of 34,991 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#246,809
of 319,611 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#357
of 446 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,096,076 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,991 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.6. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 319,611 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 446 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.