Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Humans show a higher preference for stimuli that are predictive relative to those that are predictable

Psychological Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bar, M. (2007). The proactive brain: Using analogies and associations to generate predictions. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(7), 280–289.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Bar, M., & Neta, M. (2006). Humans prefer curved visual objects. Psychological Science, 17, 645–648.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Berlyne, D. E. (1971). Aesthetics and Psychobiology. New York: Appleton Century Crofts.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chetverikov, A., & Kristjánsson, Á. (2016). On the joys of perceiving: Affect as feedback for perceptual predictions. Acta Psychologica, 169, 1–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Frith, C. D., & Nias, D. K. B. (1974). What determines aesthetic preferences? Journal of General Psychology, 91, 163–173.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horstmann, G. (2015). The surprise–attention link: A review. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1339(1), 106–115.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Leder, H., Belke, B., Oeberst, A., & Augustin, D. (2004). A model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments. British Journal of Psychology, 95, 489–508.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ogawa, H., & Watanabe, K. (2011). Implicit learning increases preference for predictive visual display. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 73(6), 1815–1822.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schützwohl, A. (1998). Surprise and schema strength. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24(5), 1182–1199.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Trapp, S., Shenhav, A., Bitzer, S., & Bar, M. (2015). Human preferences are biased towards associative information. Cognition and Emotion, 29, 1054–1068.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

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

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Senne Braem.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-017-0935-x

Navigation