Abstract
Recent studies suggest that humans prefer information that is linked to the process of prediction. Yet it remains to be specified whether preference judgments are biased to information that can be predicted, or information that enables to predict. We here use a serial reaction time task to disentangle these two options. In a first learning phase, participants were exposed to a continuous stream of arbitrary shapes while performing a go/no-go task. Embedded in this stream were hidden pairs of go-stimuli (e.g., shape A was always followed by shape B). Data show faster reaction times to predictable shapes (i.e., shape B) as compared to random and predictive shapes (i.e., shape A), indicating that participants learned the regularities and anticipated upcoming information. Importantly, in a subsequent, unannounced forced-choice preference task, the shapes that were predictive of others were significantly more preferred over random shapes than shapes that could be predicted. Because both the reaction time benefit in the learning phase and the effect in the preference phase could be considered rather small, we studied the relation between both. Interestingly, the preference correlated with the reaction time benefit from the learning phase. A closer look at this correlation further suggested that the difference in preference was only observed when participants picked up the contingencies between predictive and predictable shapes. This study adds evidence to the idea that prediction processes are not only fundamental for cognition, but contribute to the way we evaluate our external world.
References
Abrahamse, E. L., Jiménez, L., Verwey, W. B., & Clegg, B. A. (2010). Representing serial action and perception. Psychonomic Bull and Review, 17(5), 603–623.
Alink, A., Schwiedrzik, C. M., Kohler, A., Singer, W., & Muckli, L. (2010). Stimulus predictability reduces responses in primary visual cortex. Journal of Neuroscience, 30(8), 2960–2966. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3730-10.2010.
Bar, M. (2007). The proactive brain: Using analogies and associations to generate predictions. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(7), 280–289.
Bar, M., Kassam, K. S., Ghuman, A. S., Boshyan, J., Schmidt, A. M., Dale, A. M., & Halgren, E. (2006). Top-down facilitation of visual recognition. Proceedings of the National academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 103(2), 449–454.
Bar, M., & Neta, M. (2006). Humans prefer curved visual objects. Psychological Science, 17, 645–648.
Berlyne, D. E. (1971). Aesthetics and Psychobiology. New York: Appleton Century Crofts.
Bissett, P. G., & Logan, G. D. (2011). Post-stop-signal slowing: Strategies dominate reflexes and implicit learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38, 746–757.
Chetverikov, A., & Kristjánsson, Á. (2016). On the joys of perceiving: Affect as feedback for perceptual predictions. Acta Psychologica, 169, 1–10.
Fechner, G.T. (1986). Vorschule der Ästhetik. Leipzig.
Feldman Barrett, L., & Bar, M. (2009). See it with feeling: affective predictions during object perception. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 364, 1325–1334.
Foerster, R. M. (2016). Task-irrelevant expectation violations in sequential manual actions: Evidence for a “check-after-surprise” mode of visual attention and eye-hand decoupling. Frontiers in psychology, 7, 1845.
Friston, K. (2005). A theory of cortical responses. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, 360, 815–836. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2005.1622.
Friston, K. (2009). The free-energy principle: A rough guide to the brain? Trends in cognitive sciences, 13, 293–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2009.04.005.
Frith, C. D., & Nias, D. K. B. (1974). What determines aesthetic preferences? Journal of General Psychology, 91, 163–173.
Goh, J. X., Hall, J. A., & Rosenthal, R. (2016). Mini meta-analysis of your own studies: Some arguments on why and a primer on how. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10(10), 535–549.
Goris, J., Deschrijver, E., Trapp, S., Brass, M., & Braem, S. (2017). Autistic traits in the general population do not correlate with a preference for associative information. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 33, 29–38.
Horstmann, G. (2015). The surprise–attention link: A review. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1339(1), 106–115.
Kaufman, S. B., DeYoung, C. G., Gray, J. R., Jiménez, L., Brown, J., & Mackintosh, N. (2010). Implicit learning as an ability. Cognition, 116(3), 321–340.
Leder, H., Belke, B., Oeberst, A., & Augustin, D. (2004). A model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments. British Journal of Psychology, 95, 489–508.
Ogawa, H., & Watanabe, K. (2011). Implicit learning increases preference for predictive visual display. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 73(6), 1815–1822.
Rao, R. P., & Ballard, D. H. (1999). Predictive coding in the visual cortex: A functional interpretation of some extra-classical receptive-field effects. Nature Neuroscience, 2, 79–87. https://doi.org/10.1038/4580.
Reber, R., Schwarz, N., & Winkielman, P. (2004). Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver’s processing experience? Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(4), 364–382.
Rosenthal, R. (1994). Parametric measures of effect size. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The Handbook of Research Synthesis (p. 239). New York: Sage.
Schaefer, R. S., Overy, K., & Nelson, P. (2013). Affect and non-uniform characteristics of predictive processing in musical behaviour. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(3), 226–227. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X12002373.
Schützwohl, A. (1998). Surprise and schema strength. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24(5), 1182–1199.
Stevens, M., Lammertyn, J., Verbruggen, F., & Vandierendonk, A. (2006). Tscope: AC library for programming cognitive experiments on the MS Windows platform. Behavior Research Methods, 38(2), 280–286.
Todorovic, A., Van Ede, F., Maris, E., & De Lange, F. P. (2011). Prior expectation mediates neural adaptation to repeated sounds in the auditory cortex: an MEG study. Journal of Neuroscience, 31, 9118–9123. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1425-11.2011.
Trapp, S., Shenhav, A., Bitzer, S., & Bar, M. (2015). Human preferences are biased towards associative information. Cognition and Emotion, 29, 1054–1068.
Van de Cruys, S., & Wagemans, J. (2011). Putting reward in art: a tentative prediction error account of visual art. i-Perception, 2(9), 1035–1062.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Emiel Cracco for useful suggestions in analyzing our data, and two anonymous reviewers for their useful comments on an earlier version of this manuscript.
Funding
S.B. is supported by FWO-Research Foundation Flanders (FWO15/PDO/029) and S.T. by a Max Planck postdoctoral fellowship (Dr. med. Anneliese and DSc Dieter Pontius Foundation).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethical approval
All procedures performed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Braem, S., Trapp, S. Humans show a higher preference for stimuli that are predictive relative to those that are predictable. Psychological Research 83, 567–573 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-017-0935-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-017-0935-x