Separating value from selection frequency in rapid reaching biases to visual targets

Motivational Salience Guides Attention to Valuable and Threatening Stimuli: Evidence from Behavior and Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Rewarding and aversive outcomes have opposing effects on behavior, facilitating approach and avoidance, although we need to accurately anticipate each type of outcome to behave effectively. Attention is biased toward stimuli that have been learned to predict either type of outcome, and it remains an open question whether such orienting is driven by separate systems for value- and threat-based orienting or whether there exists a common underlying mechanism of attentional control driven by motivational salience. Here, we provide a direct comparison of the neural correlates of value- and threat-based attentional capture after associative learning. Across multiple measures of behavior and brain activation, our findings overwhelmingly support a motivational salience account of the control of attention. We conclude that there exists a core mechanism of experience-dependent attentional control driven by motivational salience and that prior characterizations of attention as being value driven or supporting threat monitoring need to be revisited.

Attentional capture in goal-directed action during childhood, adolescence, and early adulthood

Attentional capture occurs when salient but task-irrelevant information disrupts our ability to respond to task-relevant information. Although attentional capture costs have been found to decrease between childhood and adulthood, it is currently unclear the extent to which such age-related changes reflect an improved ability to recover from attentional capture or to avoid attentional capture. In addition, recent research using hand-tracking techniques with adults indicates that attentional capture by a distractor can generate response activations corresponding to the distractor's location, consistent with action-centered models of attention. However, it is unknown whether attentional capture can also result in the capture of action in children and adolescents. Therefore, we presented 5-year-olds, 9-year-olds, 13- and 14-year-olds, and adults (N = 96) with a singleton search task in which participants responded by reaching to touch targets on a digital display. Consistent with action-centered models of attention, distractor effects were evident in each age group's movement trajectories. In contrast to movement trajectories, movement times revealed significant age-related reductions in the costs of attentional capture, suggesting that age-related improvements in attentional control may be driven in part by an enhanced ability to recover from-as opposed to avoid-attentional capture. Children's performance was also significantly affected by response repetition effects, indicating that children may be more susceptible to interference from a wider range of task-irrelevant factors than adults. In addition to presenting novel insights into the development of attention and action, these results highlight the benefits of incorporating hand-tracking techniques into developmental research.

Reaching for known unknowns: Rapid reach decisions accurately reflect the future state of dynamic probabilistic information

Everyday tasks such as catching a ball appear effortless, but in fact require complex interactions and tight temporal coordination between the brain's visual and motor systems. What makes such interceptive actions particularly impressive is the capacity of the brain to account for temporal delays in the central nervous system-a limitation that can be mitigated by making predictions about the environment as well as one's own actions. Here, we wanted to assess how well human participants can plan an upcoming movement based on a dynamic, predictable stimulus that is not the target of action. A central stationary or rotating stimulus determined the probability that each of two potential targets would be the eventual target of a rapid reach-to-touch movement. We examined the extent to which reach movement trajectories convey internal predictions about the future state of dynamic probabilistic information conveyed by the rotating stimulus. We show that movement trajectories reflect the target probabilities determined at movement onset, suggesting that humans rapidly and accurately integrate visuospatial predictions and estimates of their own reaction times to effectively guide action.

Does hunger promote the detection of foods? The effect of value on inattentional blindness

Although human perception has evolved into a potent and efficient system, we still fall prey to astonishing failures of awareness as we miss an unexpected object in our direct view when our attention is engaged elsewhere (inattentional blindness). While specific types of value of the unexpected object have been identified to modulate the likelihood of this failure of awareness, it is not clear whether the effect of value on inattentional blindness can be generalized. We hypothesized that the combination of hunger and food-stimuli might increase a more general type of value so that food stimuli have a higher probability to be noticed by hungry participants than by satiated participants. In total, 240 participants were assigned towards a hungry (16 h of fasting) or satiated (no fasting) manipulation and performed afterward a static inattentional blindness task. However, we did not find any effect of value on inattentional blindness based on hunger and food stimuli. We speculate that different underlying mechanisms are involved for different types of value and that value manipulations need to be strong enough to ensure certain value strengths.

Reaching movements are attracted by stimuli that signal reward

When presented with a set of possible reach targets, the movement trajectory can reveal aspects of the underlying competition for action selection. Current goals and physical salience can affect the trajectory of reaching movements to be attracted towards a distractor. Some studies demonstrated that stimuli associated with reward can also cause an attraction when reaching towards the reward stimulus was previously rewarded and the reward stimulus was physically salient. Here we demonstrate that a non-salient stimulus that signals the availability of reward attracts reaching movements even when moving towards it was never necessary nor rewarded. Moreover, the attraction by reward is particularly evident with short-latency movements. We conclude that neither physical salience nor reinforcing the movement towards a stimulus is necessary for reward to gain priority in the selection for action.

No one knows what attention is

In this article, we challenge the usefulness of "attention" as a unitary construct and/or neural system. We point out that the concept has too many meanings to justify a single term, and that "attention" is used to refer to both the explanandum (the set of phenomena in need of explanation) and the explanans (the set of processes doing the explaining). To illustrate these points, we focus our discussion on visual selective attention. It is argued that selectivity in processing has emerged through evolution as a design feature of a complex multi-channel sensorimotor system, which generates selective phenomena of "attention" as one of many by-products. Instead of the traditional analytic approach to attention, we suggest a synthetic approach that starts with well-understood mechanisms that do not need to be dedicated to attention, and yet account for the selectivity phenomena under investigation. We conclude that what would serve scientific progress best would be to drop the term "attention" as a label for a specific functional or neural system and instead focus on behaviorally relevant selection processes and the many systems that implement them.

The possibility to make choices modulates feature-based effects of reward

When making decisions, humans can maximize the positive outcome of their actions by choosing the option associated with the highest reward. We have recently shown that choices modulate effects of reward via a bias in spatial attention: Locations associated with a lower reward are anticipatorily suppressed, as indicated by delayed responses to low-reward targets and increased parieto-occipital alpha power. Here, we investigated whether this inhibition also occurs when reward is not coupled to location but to a nonspatial feature (color). We analyzed reaction times to single targets associated with a low or high reward as a function of whether a second trial type, choice-trials, were interleaved. In choice-trials, participants could choose either one of two targets to obtain the associated reward. Indeed, responses to low-reward targets were slower when choice-trials were present, magnifying the influence of reward, and this delay was more pronounced in trials immediately following a choice. No corresponding changes in parieto-occipital alpha power were observed, but the behavioral findings suggest that choices modulate a reward-related bias in feature-based attention in a similar manner as for spatial attention, and support the idea that reward primarily affects behaviour when it is of immediate relevance.

It Pays to Prepare: Human Motor Preparation Depends on the Relative Value of Potential Response Options

Alternative motor responses can be prepared in parallel. Here, we used electroencephalography (EEG) to test whether the parallel preparation of alternative response options is modulated by their relative value. Participants performed a choice response task with three potential actions: isometric contraction of the left, the right, or both wrists. An imperative stimulus (IS) appeared after a warning cue, such that the initiation time of a required action was predictable, but the specific action was not. To encourage advanced preparation, the target was presented 200 ms prior to the IS, and only correct responses initiated within ±100 ms of the IS were rewarded. At baseline, all targets were equally rewarded and probable. Then, responses with one hand were made more valuable, either by increasing the probability that the left or right target would be required (Exp. 1; n = 31) or by increasing the reward magnitude of one target (Exp. 2, n = 36). We measured reaction times, movement vigor, and an EEG correlate of action preparation (value-based lateralized readiness potential) prior to target presentation. Participants responded earlier to more frequent and more highly rewarded targets, and movements to highly rewarded targets were more vigorous. The EEG was more negative over the hemisphere contralateral to the more repeated/rewarded hand, implying an increased neural preparation of more valuable actions. Thus, changing the value of alternative response options can lead to greater preparation of actions associated with more valuable outcomes. This preparation asymmetry likely contributes to behavioral biases that are typically observed toward repeated or rewarded targets.

Multiple reward-cue contingencies favor expectancy over uncertainty in shaping the reward-cue attentional salience

Reward-predicting cues attract attention because of their motivational value. A debated question regards the conditions under which the cue's attentional salience is governed more by reward expectancy rather than by reward uncertainty. To help shedding light on this relevant issue, here, we manipulated expectancy and uncertainty using three levels of reward-cue contingency, so that, for example, a high level of reward expectancy (p = .8) was compared with the highest level of reward uncertainty (p = .5). In Experiment 1, the best reward-cue during conditioning was preferentially attended in a subsequent visual search task. This result was replicated in Experiment 2, in which the cues were matched in terms of response history. In Experiment 3, we implemented a hybrid procedure consisting of two phases: an omission contingency procedure during conditioning, followed by a visual search task as in the previous experiments. Crucially, during both phases, the reward-cues were never task relevant. Results confirmed that, when multiple reward-cue contingencies are explored by a human observer, expectancy is the major factor controlling both the attentional and the oculomotor salience of the reward-cue.

The necessity to choose causes reward-related anticipatory biasing: Parieto-occipital alpha-band oscillations reveal suppression of low-value targets

Positive outcome of actions can be maximized by choosing the option with the highest reward. For saccades, it has recently been suggested that the necessity to choose is, in fact, an important factor mediating reward effects: latencies to single low-reward targets increased with an increasing proportion of interleaved choice-trials, in which participants were free to choose between two targets to obtain either a high or low reward. Here, we replicate this finding for manual responses, demonstrating that this effect of choice is a more general, effector-independent phenomenon. Oscillatory activity in the alpha and beta band in the preparatory period preceding target onset was analysed for a parieto-occipital and a centrolateral region of interest to identify an anticipatory neural biasing mechanism related to visuospatial attention or motor preparation. When the proportion of interleaved choices was high, an increase in lateralized posterior alpha power indicated that the hemifield associated with a low reward was suppressed in preparation for reward-maximizing target selection. The larger the individual increase in lateralized alpha power, the slower the reaction times to low-reward targets. At a broader level, these findings support the notion that reward only affects responses when behaviour can be optimized to maximize positive outcome.

Reaching reveals that best-versus-rest processing contributes to biased decision making

The study of human decision making has revealed many contexts in which decisions are systematically biased. These biases are particularly evident in risky decisions, characterized by choice outcomes that are probabilistic. One recently explored bias is the extreme-outcome rule: the tendency for participants to overvalue both the best and worst outcome when they learn about choice probabilities through trial and error (aka experience). Here we aimed to test whether the extreme-outcome rule arises in part from a disproportionate subjective weight on extreme values. Participants reached to choose between two options in a riskless task where each choice option always produced the same result. In contrast to the idea that the overvaluing of extreme outcomes results from participants overestimating the underlying choice probabilities (e.g. treating a 50% "worst" outcome as though it occurred 60% of the time), we find overvaluation of extreme outcomes even when they are not probabilistic. Particularly, we find strong evidence for overvaluation of the best outcome relative to all other outcomes in how participants enact their decision (reaction times and reaching movements), but no evidence for such overvaluation in participants' choice accuracy. Compared to the extreme-outcome rule, these results are more simply characterized in a framework where the "best" option is given a boost in processing relative to the "rest" of other available options.

Motor planning flexibly optimizes performance under uncertainty about task goals

In an environment full of potential goals, how does the brain determine which movement to execute? Existing theories posit that the motor system prepares for all potential goals by generating several motor plans in parallel. One major line of evidence for such theories is that presenting two competing goals often results in a movement intermediate between them. These intermediate movements are thought to reflect an unintentional averaging of the competing plans. However, normative theories suggest instead that intermediate movements might actually be deliberate, generated because they improve task performance over a random guessing strategy. To test this hypothesis, we vary the benefit of making an intermediate movement by changing movement speed. We find that participants generate intermediate movements only at (slower) speeds where they measurably improve performance. Our findings support the normative view that the motor system selects only a single, flexible motor plan, optimized for uncertain goals.

Decisions in Motion: Decision Dynamics during Intertemporal Choice reflect Subjective Evaluation of Delayed Rewards

People tend to discount rewards or losses that occur in the future. Such delay discounting has been linked to many behavioral and health problems, since people choose smaller short-term gains over greater long-term gains. We investigated whether the effect of delays on the subjective value of rewards is expressed in how people move when they make choices. Over 600 patrons of the RISK LAB exhibition hosted by the Science Gallery Dublin^TM played a short computer game in which they used a computer mouse to choose between amounts of money at various delays. Typical discounting effects were observed and decision dynamics indicated that choosing smaller short-term rewards became easier (i.e., shorter response times, tighter trajectories, less vacillation) as the delays until later rewards increased. Based on a sequence of choices, subjective values of delayed outcomes were estimated and decision dynamics during initial choices predicted these values. Decision dynamics are affected by subjective values of available options and thus provide a means to estimate such values.

The attention habit: how reward learning shapes attentional selection

There is growing consensus that reward plays an important role in the control of attention. Until recently, reward was thought to influence attention indirectly by modulating task-specific motivation and its effects on voluntary control over selection. Such an account was consistent with the goal-directed (endogenous) versus stimulus-driven (exogenous) framework that had long dominated the field of attention research. Now, a different perspective is emerging. Demonstrations that previously reward-associated stimuli can automatically capture attention even when physically inconspicuous and task-irrelevant challenge previously held assumptions about attentional control. The idea that attentional selection can be value driven, reflecting a distinct and previously unrecognized control mechanism, has gained traction. Since these early demonstrations, the influence of reward learning on attention has rapidly become an area of intense investigation, sparking many new insights. The result is an emerging picture of how the reward system of the brain automatically biases information processing. Here, I review the progress that has been made in this area, synthesizing a wealth of recent evidence to provide an integrated, up-to-date account of value-driven attention and some of its broader implications.