Mathematical Psychology
About

Mackintosh Model

Mackintosh's attentional model proposes that associability increases for stimuli that are the best available predictors of outcomes and decreases for poorer predictors.

Δαᵢ > 0 when |λ − Vᵢ| < |λ − Vⱼ|

Nicholas Mackintosh's 1975 attentional model proposes that organisms selectively attend to the most reliable predictors of reinforcement. The associability (α) of a stimulus increases when that stimulus is a better predictor of the outcome than other available cues, and decreases when it is a poorer predictor. This mechanism explains phenomena where animals learn to attend to relevant dimensions and ignore irrelevant ones.

The Attentional Rule

Mackintosh Model ΔVᵢ = αᵢ · (λ − Vᵢ)

Δαᵢ > 0 if |λ − Vᵢ| < |λ − V_other| (i is the better predictor)
Δαᵢ < 0 if |λ − Vᵢ| ≥ |λ − V_other| (i is the worse predictor)

Empirical Support

The model explains intradimensional/extradimensional shift effects: after learning to discriminate on one dimension (e.g., color), organisms are faster to learn a new discrimination on the same dimension (ID shift) than on a different dimension (ED shift), because attention to the relevant dimension has been increased. It also explains the inverse base-rate effect and blocking when understood through the lens of selective attention to the most predictive cue.

The contrast with Pearce-Hall is instructive: Mackintosh says "attend to what predicts well," while Pearce-Hall says "attend to what is surprising." Modern evidence suggests both mechanisms exist, potentially mediated by different neural systems (dopaminergic for Mackintosh, cholinergic for Pearce-Hall).

Related Topics

References

  1. Mackintosh, N. J. (1975). A theory of attention: Variations in the associability of stimuli with reinforcement. Psychological Review, 82(4), 276–298. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076778
  2. Kruschke, J. K. (2001). Toward a unified model of attention in associative learning. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 45(6), 812–863. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmps.2000.1354
  3. Le Pelley, M. E. (2004). The role of associative history in models of associative learning: A selective review and a hybrid model. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section B, 57(3), 193–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/02724990344000141
  4. Esber, G. R., & Haselgrove, M. (2011). Reconciling the influence of predictiveness and uncertainty on stimulus salience: A model of attention in associative learning. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 278(1718), 2553–2561. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2011.0836

External Links