title: SELECTIVENESS OF THE EXPOSURE-BASED PERCEPTUAL LEARNING: WHAT TO LEARN AND WHAT NOT TO LEARN.
abstract: How does the brain determine what to learn and what not to learn? Previous studies showed that a feature or stimulus on which subjects performed a task was learned, while the features or stimuli that were irrelevant to the task were not learned. This led some researchers to conclude that attention to a stimulus was necessary for the stimulus to be learned. This thought was challenged by the discovery of a task-irrelevant perceptual learning, in which learning occurred by mere exposure to the unattended and subthreshold stimulus. However, this exposure-based learning does not necessarily indicate that all presented stimuli are learned. Rather, recent studies showed that the occurrence of this learning was very selective for the following new findings: unattended stimulus learning occurred only (1) when the unattended stimulus was associated temporally with the processing of an attended target, (2) when the unattended stimulus was synchronously presented with reinforcers, such as internal or external rewards, and (3) when the unattended stimulus had subliminal properties. These selectivities suggest some degrees of similarity between task-relevant and task-irrelevant perceptual learning, which has been the motivation for making a united model in which both task-relevant and task-irrelevant learning are formed with similar or same mechanisms.
authors.affiliation: Department of Psychology, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA.
authors.forename: Hoon
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Choi
authors.forename: Takeo
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Watanabe
references.citation: Nature. 2001 Oct 25;413(6858):844-8
references.pmid: 11677607
references.citation: Vision Res. 1999;39(25):4232-43
references.pmid: 10755160
references.citation: Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2005 Apr;15(2):154-60
references.pmid: 15831396
references.citation: Nature. 2001 Aug 2;412(6846):549-53
references.pmid: 11484056
references.citation: Trends Cogn Sci. 2005 Jul;9(7):329-34
references.pmid: 15955722
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2000 Feb;26(1):379-90
references.pmid: 10696624
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 1980 Jan;87(1):1-51
references.pmid: 7375607
references.citation: Nat Neurosci. 2002 Oct;5(10):1003-9
references.pmid: 12219093
references.citation: Nature. 1980 Sep 4;287(5777):43-4
references.pmid: 7412873
references.citation: Nature. 2003 Mar 6;422(6927):36
references.pmid: 12621425
references.citation: Curr Opin Neurobiol. 1997 Aug;7(4):530-5
references.pmid: 9287202
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1993 Jun 15;90(12):5718-22
references.pmid: 8516322
references.citation: Neuron. 2009 Mar 12;61(5):700-7
references.pmid: 19285467
references.citation: Percept Psychophys. 1992 Nov;52(5):582-8
references.pmid: 1437491
references.citation: Curr Biol. 2008 Jun 24;18(12):R516-7
references.pmid: 18579092
references.citation: Annu Rev Neurosci. 1990;13:25-42
references.pmid: 2183676
references.citation: Curr Biol. 2005 Sep 20;15(18):R753-5
references.pmid: 16169472
references.citation: Science. 2006 Dec 15;314(5806):1786-8
references.pmid: 17170308
references.citation: Behav Neural Biol. 1987 Sep;48(2):237-45
references.pmid: 3675518