Reward History and Statistical Learning Independently Impact Attention Search: An ERP Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Selection history is widely accepted as a vital source in attention control. Reward history indicates that a learned association captures attention even when the reward is no longer presented, while statistical learning indicates that a learned probability exerts its influence on attentional control (facilitation or inhibition). Existing research has shown that the effects of the reward history and statistical learning are additive, suggesting that these two components influence attention priority through different pathways. In the current study, leveraging the temporal resolution advantages of EEG, we explored whether these two components represent independent sources of attentional bias. The results revealed faster responses to the target at the high-probability location compared to low-probability locations. Both the target and distractor at high-probability locations elicited larger early Pd (50-150 ms) and Pd (150-250 ms) components. The reward distractor slowed the target search and elicited a larger N2pc (180-350 ms). Further, no interaction between statistical learning and the reward history was observed in RTs or N2pc. The different types of temporal progression in attention control indicate that statistical learning and the reward history independently modulate the attention priority map.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".