Reward associations and spatial probabilities produce additive effects on attentional selection
- 560 Downloads
Recent studies have shown that reward history acts as a powerful attentional bias, even overcoming top-down goals. This has led to the suggestion that rewards belong to a class of attentional cues based on selection history, which are defined by past outcomes with a stimulus feature. Selection history is thought to be separate from traditional attentional cues based on physical salience and voluntary goals, but there is relatively little understanding of how selection history operates as a mechanism of attentional selection. Critically, it has yet to be understood how multiple sources of selection history interact when presented simultaneously. For example, it may be easier to find something we like if it also appears in a predictable location. We therefore pitted spatial probabilities against reward associations and found that the two sources of information had independent and additive effects. Additionally, the strength of the two sources in biasing attentional selection could be equated. In contrast, while a nonpredictive but perceptually salient cue also exhibited independent and additive effects with reward, reward associations dominated the perceptually salient cue at all levels. Our data indicate that reward associations are part of a class of particularly potent attentional cues that guide behavior through learned expectations. However, selection history should not be thought of as a unitary concept but should be understood as a collection of independent sources of information that bias attention in a similar fashion.
KeywordsAttention Reward Spatial probability Selection
We would like to thank Jeongmi Lee for her helpful comments on the manuscript. This work was supported by the Hellman Foundation and the National Science Foundation (BCS-1230377-0).
- Arnauld, A., & Nicole, P. (1996). Logic or the art of thinking. (J.V. Buroker, Trans.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press. (Original work published 1662).Google Scholar
- Bernoulli, D. (1954) . Exposition of a new theory on the measurement of risk. Econometrica, 22, 23–36.Google Scholar
- Della Libera, C., Perlato, A., & Chelazzi, L. (2011). Dissociable effects of reward on attentional learning: From passive associations to active monitoring. (M. H. Herzog, Ed.). PLoS One, 6(4), e19460. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0019460.g002
- Geng, J. J., Soosman, S., Sun, Y., DiQuattro, N. E., Stankevitch, B., & Minzenberg, M. J. (2013). A match made by modafinil: Probability matching in choice decisions and spatial attention. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 25(5), 657–669. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2005.04.026 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Glimcher, P. W. (2003). Decisions, uncertainty and the brain: The science of neuroeconomics. Cambridge, MA: Mass. Inst. Technol. Press.Google Scholar
- Jiang, Y. V., Swallow, K. M., & Sun, L. (2013). Egocentric coding of space for incidentally learned attention: Effects of scene context and task instructions.Google Scholar
- Jonides, J. (1981). Voluntary vs. automatic control over the mind's eye's movement. In J. B. Long & A. D. Baddeley (Eds.), Attention and Performance IX. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Kristjánsson, Á., Sigurjónsdóttir, O., & Driver, J. (2010). Fortune and reversals of fortune in visual search: Reward contingencies for pop-out targets affect search efficiency and target repetition effects. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 72(5), 1229–1236. doi: 10.3758/APP.72.5.1229 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Pascal, B. (1966). Pensees. (A.J. Krailsheimer, Trans.). New York, NY: Penguin Books. (Original work published 1670).Google Scholar
- von Neumann J., & Morgenstern O. (1944). The Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.Google Scholar