Concept Learning Builds Behaviourally Relevant Attentional Templates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Attention optimizes learning by filtering relevant information to build conceptual knowledge. However, how learned concepts, once encoded in memory, subsequently guide attentional processes remains an intriguing question. We propose that concept learning leads to the emergence of attentional templates that store goal-relevant representations, thereby actively guiding attention allocation. Participants completed two separate learning tasks and a test, wherein each trial began with a cue, indicating which learning task should be employed. Random test trials included a probe instead of concept specific features: a small arrow appeared at a feature location that was relevant (i.e., valid) or irrelevant (i.e., invalid) for the cued task. Successful learners were faster at responding to valid probes than invalid, demonstrating the deployment of concept-specific attentional templates. Importantly, the efficiency of this attention allocation was tied to concept learning success, with higher learning performance yielding greater response time benefits at test. Thus, our results reveal that learning builds behaviourally relevant attentional templates, and subsequently, learned concepts in memory guide attention by deploying these templates, a phenomenon that we introduce as learning-guided attention. This work provides novel insights into the dynamic interplay between learning, memory, and attention. Significance Statement Extensive work shows that attention selects the most relevant information while learning new knowledge. Theoretically, the interaction between learning and attention is bidirectional; learned knowledge, in turn, guides attention to relevant information for that context. However, the mechanism by which knowledge in memory directs attention has remained largely unexplored. By developing an experimental paradigm that bridges the learning and attention literatures, we demonstrate that learning builds “attentional templates” which capture what is relevant in a specific learning context. While utilizing learned knowledge, individuals deploy these templates to allocate their attention to the most relevant information for a given situation. We introduce this phenomenon as learning-guided attention , providing novel insights into the dynamic interplay between learning, memory, and attention.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".