{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0289193302891933, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00989345509893455, 'mean_word_length': 4.717391304347826, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The role of common elements in the redundancy effect.

In 2 experiments, participants received a predictive learning task in which the presence of 1 or 2 food items signaled the onset or absence of stomachache in a hypothetical patient. Their task was to identify the cues that signaled the occurrence, or nonoccurrence of this ailment. The 2 groups in Experiment 1 and the single group in Experiment 2 received a blocking treatment, where Cue A and a combination of Cues A and X both signaled stomachache, A+ AX+. These groups also received a simple discrimination where the outcome was signaled by one compound but not another, BY+ CY-. Subsequent test trials revealed the so-called redundancy effect, where X was regarded as a more reliable predictor of the outcome than Y. This result occurred when the trials with A+ preceded those with AX+ (Group E, Experiment 1 and Experiment 2), and when the trials with A+ and AX+ were intermixed (Group C, Experiment 1). The results challenge theories based on the assumption that cues presented together must compete for a limited pool of associative strength. Rather, they are said to support theories that assume changes in attention determine what is learned when two or more cues are presented together. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).