↓ Skip to main content

Previously acquired cue–outcome structural knowledge guides new learning: Evidence from the retroactive-interference-between-cues effect

Overview of attention for article published in Memory & Cognition, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
13 Mendeley
Title
Previously acquired cue–outcome structural knowledge guides new learning: Evidence from the retroactive-interference-between-cues effect
Published in
Memory & Cognition, April 2017
DOI 10.3758/s13421-017-0705-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

David Luque, Joaquín Morís, Francisco J. López, Pedro L. Cobos

Abstract

The effect of retroactive interference between cues predicting the same outcome (RIBC) occurs when the behavioral expression of a cue-outcome association (e.g., A→O1) is reduced due to the later acquisition of an association between a different cue and the same outcome (e.g., B→O1). In the present experimental series, we show that this effect can be modulated by knowledge concerning the structure of these cue-outcome relationships. In Experiments 1A and 1B, a pretraining phase was included to promote the expectation of either a one-to-one (OtO) or a many-to-one (MtO) cue-outcome structure during the subsequent RIBC training phases. We hypothesized that the adoption of an OtO expectation would make participants infer that the previously learned A→O1 relationship would not hold any longer after the exposure to B→O1 trials. Alternatively, the adoption of an MtO expectation would prevent participants from making such an inference. Experiment 1B included an additional condition without pretraining, to assess whether the OtO structure was expected by default. Experiment 2 included control conditions to assess the RIBC effect and induced the expectation of an OtO or MtO structure without the addition of a pretraining phase. Overall, the results suggest that participants effectively induced structural expectations regarding the cue-outcome contingencies. In turn, these expectations may have potentiated (OtO expectation) or alleviated (MtO expectation) the RIBC effect, depending on how well these expectations could accommodate the target A→O1 test association. This pattern of results poses difficulties for current explanations of the RIBC effect, since these explanations do not consider the incidence of cue-outcome structural expectations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users 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 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 8%
Unknown 12 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 23%
Unspecified 2 15%
Student > Postgraduate 2 15%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 8%
Professor 1 8%
Other 3 23%
Unknown 1 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 6 46%
Unspecified 2 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 8%
Neuroscience 1 8%
Other 1 8%
Unknown 1 8%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 31 July 2017.
All research outputs
#7,265,756
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Memory & Cognition
#443
of 1,653 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#109,319
of 324,619 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Memory & Cognition
#6
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,653 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its peers.
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 324,619 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.