Figure - available via license: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
Content may be subject to copyright.
Sequence and timing of stimulus events in short (above arrow) and long (below arrow) delay trials. On every trial, the target stimulus was equally likely to be a horizontal or vertical bar presented on the left or right side of the fixation cross. All trials ended with a 400-ms intertrial interval in which only the fixation cross was displayed (not shown in figure). The proportions are not drawn to scale. ISI = interstimulus interval
Source publication
It is thought that reward-induced motivation influences perceptual, attentional, and cognitive control processes to facilitate behavioral performance. In this study, we investigated the effect of reward-induced motivation on exogenous attention orienting and inhibition of return (IOR). Attention was captured by peripheral onset cues that were nonpr...
Similar publications
Recent research shows that children with motor coordination problems (or developmental coordination disorder - DCD) show deficits in not only cool executive function (EF), but also hot EF. We aimed to determine whether this deficit of hot EF is due to heightened sensitivity to rewarding stimuli, specifically, or to a general deficit of cognitive co...
Citations
... to increased motivation and effort (Bucker & Theeuwes, 2014;Engelmann & Pessoa, 2007). In conflict contexts, task-irrelevant reward further amplified the tendency for error responses triggered by the task-irrelevant properties of the target. ...
... Reward can enhance individuals' motivation levels, and individuals adjust their effort based on the reward value. Higher reward intensity lead to higher motivation level and greater effort exerted (Bucker & Theeuwes, 2014;Engelmann & Pessoa, 2007). In this study, the task-irrelevant reward transitioned from absent to present (Experiment 2) or from low to high (Experiment 3) amplified the trend of incorrect responses, increasing interference with behavior. ...
Previous research has demonstrated the influence of task-irrelevant reward on object-based attention in non-conflict contexts. However, it remains unclear whether object-based attention emerged and how task-irrelevant reward guide object-based attention in conflict contexts. Therefore, the present study adopted a variant of two-rectangle paradigm to investigate the impact of task-irrelevant reward on object-based attention in conflict contexts across three experiments. Experiment 1 observed object-based effects when combing the two-rectangle paradigm with the Stroop task. Experiment 2 used color character as target and found object-based effects in the incongruent-unrewarded condition, not in the incongruent-rewarded condition. The difference can be due to faster response in the incongruent-unrewarded condition for invalid same-object trials. Experiment 3 adopted monetary objects as target and observed reversed object-based effects in the incongruent-high-rewarded condition, not in the incongruent-low-rewarded condition. This was due to faster response in the incongruent-low-rewarded condition than in the incongruent-high-rewarded condition for invalid same-object trials. These findings demonstrated that task-irrelevant reward can affect the object-based attention in conflict contexts, and different types of rewards may share a common mechanism in their impact on object-based attention. Ultimately, this study provided further support for the attentional spreading theory.
... In other words, there was an overall improvement in performance that did not depend on whether the cue was valid or invalid. Therefore, the reduction in the RT difference post-treatment suggests that the treatment does not intensify spatial attention allocation but minimizes the cost of reallocating attention when cues are invalid (Bucker and Theeuwes, 2014). It seems that ILF training improves efficiency in orienting and reorienting spatial attention. ...
Purpose
Neurofeedback (NF) typically involves an operant conditioning or other reinforcement protocol aimed at self-regulating patterns of brain activation. Endogenous Neuromodulation, characterized by the absence of discrete reinforcers, has emerged over the last two decades with the extension of training into the infra-low frequency regime, i.e., below 0.1 Hz. Specifically, Infra-Low Frequency (ILF) Neurofeedback training has demonstrated efficacy in enhancing the self-organization and regulation of the central nervous system in considerable generality. The present study explores a pivotal question: Can Infra-Low Frequency (ILF) Neurofeedback, acknowledged for its influence on arousal, vigilance, and emotional states, effectively enhance both attention generally and shooting performance specifically? Additionally, we explored whether the training exerted beneficial effects on three attentional networks—Conflict, Orienting, and Alerting.
Methods
To assess shooting performance, we employed the Shooter’s Coordination Analysis Target Training (SCATT), while attention networks were gauged through the Attention Network Test (ANT). Twenty semi-skilled pistol shooters, aged 28–40, underwent both the ANT and SCATT assessments before and after completing 20 half-hour ILF-Neurofeedback sessions. The participants were randomly assigned to two groups: an ILF NFB group, which underwent 20 sessions of ILF NFB training, and a control group that received no NFB.
Results
Our findings revealed that ILF-Neurofeedback significantly enhanced performance. In the ANT, the training led to a reduction in Conflict and an increase in Orienting and Alerting.
Conclusion
The study demonstrates the effectiveness of ILF-Neurofeedback in improving shooting performance, and in positively impacting all three attention networks assessed by the ANT.
... Most of the research in this area has examined spatial attention (selection of the spatial locations where the stimuli are presented) and has shown that stimuli previously associated with reward are more likely to capture spatial attention, which is known as value-driven attentional capture (VDAC). For example, when reward is linked with a task-unrelated stimulus through associative learning, VDAC can render the reward-associated stimulus more salient (e.g., Anderson, 2016;Anderson et al., 2011;Bucker & Theeuwes, 2014;Engelmann & Pessoa, 2007;Padmala & Pessoa, 2008;Small et al., 2005) and block effective attentional orientation (Camara et al., 2013;Le Pelley et al., 2015;Preciado et al., 2017;Watson et al., 2020). In particular, studies using eye tracking have shown that learning value affects the likelihood that attention is directed to locations where rewardassociated stimuli are present Nissens et al., 2017). ...
Reward has been known to render the reward-associated stimulus more salient to block effective attentional orienting in space. However, whether and how reward influences goal-directed attention in time remains unclear. Here, we used a modified attentional cueing paradigm to explore the effect of reward on temporal attention, in which the valid targets were given a low monetary reward and invalid targets were given a high monetary reward. The results showed that the temporal cue validity effect was significantly smaller when the competitive reward structure was employed (Experiment 1), and we ruled out the possibility that the results were due to the practice effect (Experiment 2a) or a reward-promoting effect (Experiment 2b). When further strengthening the intensity of the reward from 1:10 to 1:100 (Experiment 3), we found a similar pattern of results to those in Experiment 1. These results suggest that reward information which was based on relative instead of absolute values can weaken, but not reverse, the orienting attention in time.
... The present study used the cue-target paradigm to investigate whether rewards influence cross-modal IOR. Based on the previous research paradigm (Bucker & Theeuwes, 2014;Handy et al., 1999), an auditory modality was added. We manipulated the modalities through which the stimuli were presented (VA condition: cues were visual stimuli, targets were auditory stimuli; AV condition: cues were auditory stimuli, targets were visual stimuli) to investigate whether the use of rewards influenced cross-modal IOR. ...
... On the one hand, the sample size was based on previous studies of the cross-modal IOR and rewardbased attention (Bucker & Theeuwes, 2014;Handy et al., 1999;Wang et al., 2022); on the other hand, G * Power 3.1.9.7 (Faul et al., 2007(Faul et al., , 2009) was used to estimate the proper sample size (estimated effect size f = 0.25, alpha = 0.05, power = 0.95), suggesting a sample of 23 participants. Thirty-eight participants (16 males and 22 females; age range = 18-26 years, mean age = 20.3 ± 2.5 years) participated. ...
... The present study investigated the effect of rewards on cross-modal IOR. Based on the research paradigm (Bucker & Theeuwes, 2014;Handy et al., 1999), an auditory modality was added, and the effect of reward history was controlled by presenting the low-reward blocks first followed by the high-reward blocks. We analyzed the first four blocks (low-reward group) and the last four blocks (high-reward group) separately. ...
Previous studies have shown that rewards weaken visual inhibition of return (IOR). However, the specific mechanisms underlying the influence of rewards on cross-modal IOR remain unclear. Based on the Posner exogenous cue-target paradigm, the present study was conducted to investigate the effect of rewards on exogenous spatial cross-modal IOR in both visual cue with auditory target (VA) and auditory cue with visual target (AV) conditions. The results showed the following: in the AV condition, the IOR effect size in the high-reward condition was significantly lower than that in the low-reward condition. However, in the VA condition, there was no significant IOR in either the high- or low-reward condition and there was no significant difference between the two conditions. In other words, the use of rewards modulated exogenous spatial cross-modal IOR with visual targets; specifically, high rewards may have weakened IOR in the AV condition. Taken together, our study extended the effect of rewards on IOR to cross-modal attention conditions and demonstrated for the first time that higher motivation among individuals under high-reward conditions weakened the cross-modal IOR with visual targets. Moreover, the present study provided evidence for future research on the relationship between reward and attention.
... Singleton capture, as we may call this kind of stimulusdriven attention, is not only a consequence of the type of visual information: It can also occur as a consequence of learning (Anderson et al., 2011;Bucker and Theeuwes, 2014;Failing and Theeuwes, 2018). For example, rewarding Color A (say red) on average more than Color B (e.g., green) during a training phase, leads to singleton capture and thus, interference by a color distractor with a previously rewarded color during visual search for a shape target in a subsequent test phase: Even though the color of the target and of just any stimulus in the shape search task is entirely task-irrelevant, that is, does no longer lead to any reward -and participants know all that -presenting the previously reward-associated color as a distractor away from the target delays search, as much as any other singleton would do (Anderson et al., 2011). ...
How does the language we speak affect our perception? Here, we argue for linguistic relativity and present an explanation through “language-induced automatized stimulus-driven attention” (LASA): Our respective mother tongue automatically influences our attention and, hence, perception, and in this sense determines what we see. As LASA is highly practiced throughout life, it is difficult to suppress, and even shows in language-independent non-linguistic tasks. We argue that attention is involved in language-dependent processing and point out that automatic or stimulus-driven forms of attention, albeit initially learned as serving a linguistic skill, account for linguistic relativity as they are automatized and generalize to non-linguistic tasks. In support of this possibility, we review evidence for such automatized stimulus-driven attention in language-independent non-linguistic tasks. We conclude that linguistic relativity is possible and in fact a reality, although it might not be as powerful as assumed by some of its strongest proponents.
... To limit the variability in baseline dopamine level between subjects, prior to recruitment, all participants completed the Barratt Impulsivity Scale (BIS-11, [80]) subscale of 'cognitive instability'. The degree of impulsivity has been shown via positron emission tomography (PET) and single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) imaging studies to be significantly correlated to dopaminergic transmission and receptor/transporter abundance within the striatum [81][82][83][84]. Participants were only recruited if their score was within 1.5 standard deviations of the mean reported from a large control sample (1577 healthy adults) [85]. ...
Striatal dopamine dysfunction is associated with the altered top-down modulation of pain processing. The dopamine D2-like receptor family is a potential substrate for such effects due to its primary expression in the striatum, but evidence for this is currently lacking. Here, we investigated the effect of pharmacologically manipulating striatal dopamine D2 receptor activity on the anticipation and perception of acute pain stimuli in humans. Participants received visual cues that induced either certain or uncertain anticipation of two pain intensity levels delivered via a CO2 laser. Rating of the pain intensity and unpleasantness was recorded. Brain activity was recorded with EEG and analysed via source localisation to investigate neural activity during the anticipation and receipt of pain. Participants completed the experiment under three conditions, control (Sodium Chloride), D2 receptor agonist (Cabergoline), and D2 receptor antagonist (Amisulpride), in a repeated-measures, triple-crossover, double-blind study. The antagonist reduced an individuals’ ability to distinguish between low and high pain following uncertain anticipation. The EEG source localisation showed that the agonist and antagonist reduced neural activations in specific brain regions associated with the sensory integration of salient stimuli during the anticipation and receipt of pain. During anticipation, the agonist reduced activity in the right mid-temporal region and the right angular gyrus, whilst the antagonist reduced activity within the right postcentral, right mid-temporal, and right inferior parietal regions. In comparison to control, the antagonist reduced activity within the insula during the receipt of pain, a key structure involved in the integration of the sensory and affective aspects of pain. Pain sensitivity and unpleasantness were not changed by D2R modulation. Our results support the notion that D2 receptor neurotransmission has a role in the top-down modulation of pain.
... Reward learning modifies the attentional priority of stimuli involuntarily, enabling them to compete more effectively for selection (Anderson, 2013;Anderson et al., 2011;Failing & Theeuwes, 2014Hickey et al., 2010Hickey et al., , 2011. Studies have used the spatial cue-target paradigm to investigate the impact of reward on attention and found that reward affects the inhibition of spatial attention: the reaction times (RTs) of low-reward condition are typically longer than those of high-reward condition (Blini et al., 2018;Bucker & Theeuwes, 2014;Kang et al., 2015;Munneke et al., 2015;Rutherford et al., 2010). Munneke et al. (2015) found that high reward stimuli captured more attention and resulted in sped-up RTs when rewarded cues signaled the correct target location with cue-target task in which both endogenous and exogenous cues were used. ...
... Engelmann and Pessoa (2007) found that elevated motivation (incentive magnitude for reward) leads to improved efficiency in orienting and reorienting of exogenous spatial attention and detection sensitivity improved as a function of incentive value. Bucker and Theeuwes (2014) found that attention exhibited only a typical IOR effect under high-reward condition rather than low-reward condition. This indicates that reward-induced motivation had a clear effect on inhibitory processes following the initial capture of attention. ...
... But for the effect of reward on IOR, at least two major questions have not been answered. First, many studies did not effectively decouple from task-relevance with reward-based selection, and researchers found oculomotor capture to the target which is no longer associated with reward due to reward-based selection history (Anderson & Yantis, 2012;Bucker & Theeuwes, 2014;Zhao et al., 2020). The effect of reward on attentional capture (reward history) is not only persistent (Anderson, & Yantis, 2013;Della Libera & Chelazzi, 2009;Failing & Theeuwes, 2018) but also generalized (Anderson et al., 2011;Anderson & Yantis, 2012). ...
In attentional orienting, researchers have proposed that reward history is a component of attentional control, as the reward value might enhance the spatial attention process to achieve more efficient goal-directed behavior and to improve target-detection performance. Although the effect of reward-induced motivation on attentional orienting has been studied in two-dimensional (2-D) space, the specific mechanisms underlying the influence of reward on inhibition of return (IOR) of attentional orienting in three-dimensional space (3-D) remain unclear. In the present study, by incorporating the Posner spatial-cueing paradigm into a virtual 3-D environment, we aimed to investigate the influence of reward on IOR in 3-D space. The results showed the following: (1) IOR size in the rewarded conditions was smaller than IOR size in the unrewarded condition in the near depth plane, resulting in an IOR difference with or without reward. (2) Reward weakened IOR in the near depth plane because the response to the uncued location was delayed, not because the response to the cued location was accelerated. The present study indicated that the different depth planes of the target location in 3-D space could influence the interaction between reward and IOR, and reward weakened IOR in the near depth plane.
... In well-controlled lab environments, the orienting of attention is often studied by embedding motivational valence information in visual attention tasks using reward cues or reward block manipulations. While some of these studies explored general performance benefits of reward cues when discriminating visual target stimuli at predicted locations (Krebs et al., 2012;Schevernels et al., 2014), others have specifically focused on the effects of reward on orienting (and reorienting) of attention using valid and invalid spatial cues (Bucker & Theeuwes, 2014;Engelmann & Pessoa, 2007;Milstein & Dorris, 2007;Small et al., 2005). These latter studies rely on the Posner cuing paradigm, hence probing both the initial orienting of attention towards the prioritized (cued) part of the screen, re-centering, and re-orienting towards the opposite part if the target appears in the noncued location (see Posner, 1980;Wright & Ward, 2008). ...
... It was found that peripheral reward cues induced stronger validity effects compared to no-incentive and loss cues (see also Engelmann & Pessoa, 2007;Munneke et al., 2015). This effect was further modulated by the cue-target interval in that (invalid) reward cues led to longer lingering at the cued location, while loss cues promoted faster disengagement from the cued location (for a related block manipulation, see Bucker & Theeuwes, 2014). This pattern seems to indicate that peripheral reward cues not only lead to stronger attentional capture at the cued location, but also to temporally extended attentional orienting. ...
... Globally, our observations are well in line with previous literature in both research areas. First, previous research has shown that cues signaling the prospect of reward affect performance in visual attention tasks, including improved visual discrimination at validly cued target locations (e.g., Bucker & Theeuwes, 2014, 2016Engelmann & Pessoa, 2007;Krebs et al., 2012;Munneke et al., 2015;Schevernels et al., 2014;Small et al., 2005), but also performance costs at invalidly cued locations based on enhanced attentional capture (e.g., Bucker & Theeuwes, 2014, 2016Munneke et al., 2015). This latter observation is also in line with more incidental (i.e., non-strategic) effects of reward-related stimulus features, which can capture attention if they are presented as distractors in a reward task (e.g., Hickey et al., 2010;Itthipuripat et al., 2019), a non-rewarded test phase (e.g., Anderson, 2013;Anderson et al., 2011;Watson et al., 2019), or in both the reward and non-rewarded phase of the same experiment (see Watson et al., 2020). ...
Our attention is constantly captured and guided by visual and/or auditory inputs. One key contributor to selecting relevant information from the environment is reward prospect. Intriguingly, while both multimodal signal processing and reward effects on attention have been widely studied, research on multimodal reward signals is lacking. Here, we investigated this using a Posner task featuring peripheral cues of different modalities (audiovisual/visual/auditory), reward prospect (reward/no-reward), and cue-target stimulus-onset asynchronies (SOAs 100–1,300 ms). We found that audiovisual and visual reward cues (but not auditory ones) enhanced cue-validity effects, albeit with different time courses (Experiment 1). While the reward-modulated validity effect of visual cues was pronounced at short SOAs, the effect of audiovisual reward cues emerged at longer SOAs. Follow-up experiments exploring the effects of visual (Experiment 2) and auditory (Experiment 3) reward cues in isolation showed that reward modulated performance only in the visual condition. This suggests that the differential effect of visual and auditory reward cues in Experiment 1 is not merely a result of the mixed cue context, but confirms that visual reward cues have a stronger impact on attentional guidance in this paradigm. Taken together, it seems that adding an auditory reward cue to the inherently dominant visual one led to a shift/extension of the validity effect in time – instead of increasing its amplitude. While generally being in line with a multimodal cuing benefit, this specific pattern highlights that different reward signals are not simply combined in a linear fashion but lead to a qualitatively different process.
... However, the allocation of attention is not always under cognitive control. In selective-attention paradigms, manipulating task engagement by providing external (monetary) incentives serves to test whether the allocation of attention is determined by goal-driven (controlled) or stimulusdriven (automatic) processes (Bucker & Theeuwes, 2014). For instance, there is evidence that the distracting effect of emotional (e.g., erotic) stimuli is reduced by providing external (monetary) incentives for focusing on simultaneously presented visual targets (Walsh et al., 2018). ...
... This finding can be interpreted as suggesting that orienting to intrinsically interesting stimuli is partly under cognitive control, implying that the tradeoff between the nominally relevant and irrelevant material involves a deliberate decision on how intensely each stream of information is to be processed. Other components of visual attention such as the initial orienting towards the abrupt onset of peripheral cues, by contrast, have been found to be unaffected by incentiveinduced variations in task engagement, suggesting that these processes are stimulus-driven and escape cognitive control (Bucker & Theeuwes, 2014). ...
The duplex-mechanism account of auditory distraction postulates that two distinct forms of auditory distraction can be distinguished by whether or not they can be cognitively controlled. While the interference-by-process component of auditory distraction is postulated to be automatic and independent of cognitive control, the stimulus-aspecific attention capture by auditory deviants and the stimulus-specific attentional diversion by auditorily presented distractor sentences should be suppressed by increased task engagement. Here we test whether incentive-induced changes in task engagement affect the disruption of serial recall by auditory deviants (Experiment 1) and distractor sentences (Experiment 2). Monetary incentives substantially affected recall performance in both experiments. However, the incentive-induced changes in task engagement had only limited effects on auditory distraction. In Experiment 2, increased task engagement was associated with a small decrease of distraction relative to a quiet condition, but strong effects of auditory distraction on performance persisted in conditions of high task engagement in both experiments. Most importantly, and in contrast to the predictions of the duplex-mechanism account, the effects of stimulus-aspecific attention capture (Experiment 1) and stimulus-specific attentional diversion (Experiment 2) remained unaffected by incentive-induced changes in task engagement. These findings are consistent with an automatic-capture account according to which only the processes responsible for the deliberate memorization of the target items are dependent on controlled mental effort while the attention capture by auditory deviants and the attentional diversion by distractor speech are largely automatic.
... Indeed, research has shown that goal-directed processes can modulate inhibition of return effects (Birmingham et al., 2007;Tipper & Kingstone, 2005). For example, Bucker and Theeuwes (2014) showed that while the initial orienting effect is purely stimulus driven, attentional reorienting and inhibitory processes following the initial capture of attention are susceptible to modulation by motivation (Bucker & Theeuwes, 2014). ...
... Indeed, research has shown that goal-directed processes can modulate inhibition of return effects (Birmingham et al., 2007;Tipper & Kingstone, 2005). For example, Bucker and Theeuwes (2014) showed that while the initial orienting effect is purely stimulus driven, attentional reorienting and inhibitory processes following the initial capture of attention are susceptible to modulation by motivation (Bucker & Theeuwes, 2014). ...
... While it goes beyond the current research to pinpoint what stages of information processing and through what mechanism cooperative contexts modulate inhibition of return in the joint spatial cueing task, our findings add to the long list of studies demonstrating endogenous modulation of inhibition of return effects (Birmingham et al., 2007;Bucker & Theeuwes, 2014;Jones et al., 2002;Lupiáñez et al., 2001;Pratt et al., 1998;Tipper & Kingstone, 2005). Our findings are consistent with previous research showing that beliefs about the social meaning of the cue alone suffice to modulate inhibition of return effects (Gobel et al., 2018;Gobel & Giesbrecht, 2020;Liu et al., 2021;Tufft et al., 2015). ...
This research investigated how interactive social contexts shape basic visual attention. It has been
shown that social information can modulate inhibition of return effects in joint spatial cueing tasks.
We predicted that if perceptions of cooperativeness explain this phenomenon, we would then
observe larger inhibition of return effects for more cooperative individuals and in highly
cooperative contexts. Experiments 1a and 1b found larger inhibition of return effects and
greater perceptions of cooperativeness for female compared to male participants, consistent
with the literature on gender stereotypes and the behavioural evidence that females are more
cooperative than males. In Experiment 2a and 2b, we experimentally manipulated the
cooperativeness of the task, describing it as either a team or an individual game. This time, we
found larger inhibition of return effects and greater perceptions of cooperativeness for male
participants in the team compared to the individual game. We conclude that construing
interactive contexts as cooperative plays an important role in the joint spatial orienting of visual
attention, and we propose this as an example of socially distributed cognition.
