Sequential Effects Reflect Parallel Learning of Multiple Environmental Regularities

Across a wide range of cognitive tasks, recent experience influences behavior. For example, when individuals repeatedly perform a simple two-alternative forced-choice task (2AFC), response latencies vary dramatically based on the immediately preceding trial sequence. These sequential effects have been interpreted as adaptation to the statistical structure of an uncertain, changing environment (e.g., Jones and Sieck, 2003; Mozer, Kinoshita, and Shettel, 2007; Yu and Cohen, 2008). The Dynamic Belief Model (DBM) (Yu and Cohen, 2008) explains sequential effects in 2AFC tasks as a rational consequence of a dynamic internal representation that tracks second-order statistics of the trial sequence (repetition rates) and predicts whether the upcoming trial will be a repetition or an alternation of the previous trial. Experimental results suggest that first-order statistics (base rates) also influence sequential effects. We propose a model that learns both first- and second-order sequence properties, each according to the basic principles of the DBM but under a unified inferential framework. This model, the Dynamic Belief Mixture Model (DBM2), obtains precise, parsimonious fits to data. Furthermore, the model predicts dissociations in behavioral (Maloney, Martello, Sahm, and Spillmann, 2005) and electrophysiological studies (Jentzsch and Sommer, 2002), supporting the psychological and neurobiological reality of its two components.

[1]  I. Jentzsch,et al.  Functional localization and mechanisms of sequential effects in serial reaction time tasks , 2002, Perception & psychophysics.

[2]  Jonathan D. Cohen,et al.  Mechanisms underlying dependencies of performance on stimulus history in a two-alternative forced-choice task , 2002, Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience.

[3]  John C. Jahnke,et al.  The Ranschburg effect. , 1969 .

[4]  Michael C. Mozer,et al.  Sequential Dependencies in Human Behavior Offer Insights Into Cognitive Control , 2007, Integrated Models of Cognitive Systems.

[5]  E. Soetens,et al.  Expectancy or Automatic Facilitation? Separating Sequential Effects in Two-Choice Reaction Time , 1985 .

[6]  Cynthia S. Sahm,et al.  Past trials influence perception of ambiguous motion quartets through pattern completion. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[7]  N. Anderson Effect of first-order conditional probability in two-choice learning situation. , 1960, Journal of experimental psychology.

[8]  D. Hale Sequential Effects in a Two-Choice Serial Reaction Task , 1967, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[9]  M. Posner,et al.  Components of visual orienting , 1984 .

[10]  Donald Laming,et al.  Subjective probability in choice-reaction experiments ☆ , 1969 .

[11]  D. Bouwhuis,et al.  Attention and performance X : control of language processes , 1986 .

[12]  Winston R. Sieck,et al.  Learning myopia: an adaptive recency effect in category learning. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[13]  W. Estes Toward a Statistical Theory of Learning. , 1994 .

[14]  K L Shapiro,et al.  Temporary suppression of visual processing in an RSVP task: an attentional blink? . , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[15]  Jonathan D. Cohen,et al.  Sequential effects: Superstition or rational behavior? , 2008, NIPS.

[16]  N. Kanwisher Repetition blindness: Type recognition without token individuation , 1987, Cognition.