Distractors associated with reward break through the focus of attention

Interaction of spatial attention and the associated reward value of audiovisual objects

Reward value and selective attention both enhance the representation of sensory stimuli at the earliest stages of processing. It is still debated whether and how reward-driven and attentional mechanisms interact to influence perception. Here we ask whether the interaction between reward value and selective attention depends on the sensory modality through which the reward information is conveyed. Human participants first learned the reward value of uni-modal visual and auditory stimuli during a conditioning phase. Subsequently, they performed a target detection task on bimodal stimuli containing a previously rewarded stimulus in one, both, or neither of the modalities. Additionally, participants were required to focus their attention on one side and only report targets on the attended side. Our results showed a strong modulation of visual and auditory event-related potentials (ERPs) by spatial attention. We found no main effect of reward value but importantly we found an interaction effect as the strength of attentional modulation of the ERPs was significantly affected by the reward value. When reward effects were examined separately with respect to each modality, auditory value-driven modulation of attention was found to dominate the ERP effects whereas visual reward value on its own led to no effect, likely due to its interference with the target processing. These results inspire a two-stage model where first the salience of a high reward stimulus is enhanced on a local priority map specific to each sensory modality, and at a second stage reward value and top-down attentional mechanisms are integrated across sensory modalities to affect perception.

Spatial task relevance modulates value-driven attentional capture

Attention tends to be attracted to visual features previously associated with reward. To date, nearly all existing studies examined value-associated stimuli at or near potential target locations, making such locations meaningful to inspect. The present experiments examined whether the attentional priority of a value-associated stimulus depends on its location-wise task relevance. In three experiments we used an RSVP task to compare the attentional demands of a value-associated peripheral distractor to that of a distractor associated with the top-down search goal. At a peripheral location that could never contain the target, a value-associated color did not capture attention. In contrast, at the same location, a distractor in a goal-matching color did capture attention. The results show that value-associated stimuli lose their attentional priority at task-irrelevant locations, in contrast to other types of stimuli that capture attention.

Value-driven effects on perceptual averaging

Perceptual averaging refers to a strategy of encoding the statistical properties of entire sets of objects rather than encoding individual object properties, potentially circumventing the visual system's strict capacity limitations. Prior work has shown that such average representations of set properties, such as its mean size, can be modulated by top-down and bottom-up attention. However, it is unclear to what extent attentional biases through selection history, in the form of value-driven attentional capture, influences this type of summary statistical representation. To investigate, we conducted two experiments in which participants estimated the mean size of a set of heterogeneously sized circles while a previously rewarded color singleton was part of the set. In Experiment 1, all circles were gray, except either the smallest or the largest circle, which was presented in a color previously associated with a reward. When the largest circle in the set was associated with the highest value (as a proxy of selection history), we observed the largest biases, such that perceived mean size scaled linearly with the increasing value of the attended color singleton. In Experiment 2, we introduced a dual-task component in the form of an attentional search task to ensure that the observed bias of reward on perceptual averaging was not fully explained by focusing attention solely on the reward-signaling color singleton. Collectively, findings support the proposal that selection history, like bottom-up and top-down attention, influences perceptual averaging, and that this happens in a flexible manner proportional to the extent to which attention is captured.

The past, present, and future of selection history

The last ten years of attention research have witnessed a revolution, replacing a theoretical dichotomy (top-down vs. bottom-up control) with a trichotomy (biased by current goals, physical salience, and selection history). This third new mechanism of attentional control, selection history, is multifaceted. Some aspects of selection history must be learned over time whereas others reflect much more transient influences. A variety of different learning experiences can shape the attention system, including reward, aversive outcomes, past experience searching for a target, target‒non-target relations, and more. In this review, we provide an overview of the historical forces that led to the proposal of selection history as a distinct mechanism of attentional control. We then propose a formal definition of selection history, with concrete criteria, and identify different components of experience-driven attention that fit within this definition. The bulk of the review is devoted to exploring how these different components relate to one another. We conclude by proposing an integrative account of selection history centered on underlying themes that emerge from our review.

Fear of Missing Out Predicts Distraction by Social Reward Signals Displayed on a Smartphone in Difficult Driving Situations

Smartphones are particularly likely to elicit driver distraction with obvious negative repercussions on road safety. Recent selective attention models lead to expect that smartphones might be very effective in capturing attention due to their social reward history. Hence, individual differences in terms of Fear of Missing Out (FoMO) – i.e., of the apprehension of missing out on socially rewarding experiences – should play an important role in driver distraction. This factor has already been associated with self-reported estimations of greater attention paid to smartphones while driving, but the potential link between FoMO and smartphone-induced distraction has never been tested empirically. Therefore, we conducted a preliminary study to investigate whether FoMO would modulate attentional capture by reward distractors displayed on a smartphone. First, participants performed a classical visual search task in which neutral stimuli (colored circles) were associated with high or low social reward outcomes. Then, they had to detect a pedestrian or a roe deer in driving scenes with various levels of fog density. The social reward stimuli were displayed as distractors on the screen of a smartphone embedded in the pictures. The results showed a significant three-way interaction between FoMO, social reward distraction, and task difficulty. More precisely, under attention-demanding conditions (i.e., high-fog density), individual FoMO scores predicted attentional capture by social reward distractors, with longer reaction times (RTs) for high rather than low social reward distractors. These results highlight the importance to consider reward history and FoMO when investigating smartphone-based distraction. Limitations are discussed, notably regarding our sample characteristics (i.e., mainly young females) that might hamper the generalization of our findings to the overall population. Future research directions are provided.

Reward history modulates perceptual load effects

The reward history of a stimulus can yield strong attentional selection biases. Indeed, attentional capture can be triggered by previously rewarded items which are neither salient nor relevant for the ongoing task, even when selection is clearly counter-productive to actually obtain the reward outcome. Therefore, value-driven attentional capture (VDAC) has been argued to be an automatic attention mechanism. Our study aimed at putting the VDAC automaticity directly to the test. For this purpose, the Load Theory offers a comprehensive framework where distraction is observed under low but not high perceptual load condition. Nevertheless, if VDAC is indeed automatic, distraction by reward-stimuli should be observed on both perceptual load conditions. We used a feature vs. conjunction discrimination of a go/no-go cue to manipulate perceptual load. As expected, our results revealed that perceptual load decreased interference produced by low-reward distractor. However, this effect was not significant for high-reward distractor, giving support to VDAC automaticity. We discussed our results in light of the Load Theory literature and we strongly encourage to consider reward history along with perceptual load in determining attentional capture.

Combined influence of valence and statistical learning on the control of attention: Evidence for independent sources of bias

Selection history exerts a powerful influence on the control of attention. Stimuli signalling reward and punishment capture attention even when physically non-salient and task-irrelevant. Repeated presentation of a salient distractor at a particular location generates learned suppression, resulting in reduced attentional processing at that location. A debate in the field concerns whether different components of selection history influence attention via a common underlying mechanism of learning-dependent control or via distinct, independent mechanisms. We probed this question with a particular focus on reward/punishment history and learned suppression. Participants were trained to suppress a particular location (high probability distractor location) and associate colours with reward or no outcome (no-reward). In a subsequent task, reward and no-reward distractors appeared in all locations equally often. In a separate experiment, we replaced reward with electric shocks. Reward and shock distractors captured attention more strongly than no-reward and no-shock distractors irrespective of their location. Distractors appearing in the high probability location showed reduced capture irrespective of their type. The results imply that reward and punishment learning and learned suppression have independent influences on the attentional system.

Uncertainty modulates value-driven attentional capture

The majority of previous studies on the value modulation of attention have shown that the magnitude of value-driven attentional bias correlates with the strength of reward association. However, relatively little is known about how uncertainty affects value-based attentional bias. We investigated whether attentional capture by previously rewarded stimuli is modulated by the uncertainty of the learned value without the influence of the strength of reward association. Participants were instructed to identify the line orientation in the target color circle. Importantly, each target color was associated with a different level of uncertainty by tuning the variation in reward delivery (Experiment 1) or reward magnitude (Experiment 2). Attentional interference for uncertainty-related distractors was greater than that for certainty distractors in Experiments 1 and 2. In addition, uncertainty-induced attentional bias disappeared earlier than attentional bias for certainty. The study demonstrated that uncertainty modulates value-based attentional capture in terms of strength and persistence, even when the effect of expected value remains constant.

Motivated suppression of value- and threat-modulated attentional capture

Attention prioritizes stimuli previously associated with reward or punishment. The present study examined whether this attentional bias, widely considered to be involuntary and automatic, could be suppressed with sufficient motivation. Participants performed visual search for a shape-defined target. One color-singleton distractor predicted the possibility of receiving a reward and another an electric shock, with each outcome occurring infrequently. Participants were informed that the likelihood to earn a reward or avert punishment depended on fast and accurate performance, thus providing strong motivation to resist distraction by reward- and shock-related stimuli. Results revealed a reduction in the magnitude of attentional capture by reward- and threat-associated distractors, relative to neutral distractors, that persisted into extinction. In a second experiment, we replicated the suppression of value-modulated attentional capture in the absence of the shock condition, thus confirming that the suppression did not result from the presence of threat. Finally, in a third experiment, we replicated the typical pattern of attentional capture by reward cues using a more conventional procedure in which the motivation to suppress valent stimuli was low (the likelihood to be rewarded was high and not contingent on fast performance). This study demonstrates that signals for reward and threat can be actively suppressed with sufficient motivation. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Implicit food odour priming effects on reactivity and inhibitory control towards foods

The food environment can interact with cognitive processing and influence eating behaviour. Our objective was to characterize the impact of implicit olfactory priming on inhibitory control towards food, in groups with different weight status. Ninety-one adults completed a modified Affective Shifting Task: they had to detect target stimuli and ignore distractor stimuli while being primed with non-attentively perceived odours. We measured reactivity and inhibitory control towards food pictures. Priming effects were observed on reactivity: participants with overweight and obesity were slower when primed with pear and pound cake odour respectively. Common inhibitory control patterns toward foods were observed between groups. We suggest that non-attentively perceived food cues influence bottom-up processing by activating distinguished mental representations according to weight status. Also, our data show that cognitive load influences inhibitory control toward foods. Those results contribute to understanding how the environment can influence eating behaviour in individuals with obesity.

Selection History-Driven Signal Suppression

The control of attention is influenced by current goals, physical salience, and selection history. Under certain conditions, physically salient stimuli can be strategically suppressed below baseline levels, facilitating visual search for a target. It is unclear whether such signal suppression is a broad mechanism of selective information processing that extends to other sources of attentional priority evoked by task-irrelevant stimuli, or whether it is particular to physically salient perceptual signals. Using eye movements, in the present study we highlight a case where a former-target-color distractor facilitates search for a target on a large percentage of trials. Our findings provide evidence that the principle of signal suppression extends to other sources of attentional priority beyond physical salience, and that selection history can be leveraged to strategically guide attention away from a stimulus.

Attentional Orienting by Non-informative Cue Is Shaped via Reinforcement Learning

It has been demonstrated that a reward-associated stimulus feature captures attention involuntarily. The present study tested whether spatial attentional orienting is biased via reinforcement learning. Participants were to identify a target stimulus presented in one of two placeholders, preceded by a non-informative arrow cue at the center of the display. Importantly, reward was available when the target occurred at a location cued by a reward cue, defined as a specific color (experiments 1 and 3) or a color-direction combination (experiment 2). The attentional bias of the reward cue was significantly increased as trials progressed, resulting in a greater cue-validity effect for the reward cue than the no-reward cue. This attentional bias was still evident even when controlling for the possibility that the incentive salience of the reward cue color modulates the cue-validity effect (experiment 2) or when the reward was withdrawn after reinforcement learning (experiment 3). However, it disappeared when the reward was provided regardless of cue validity (experiment 4), implying that the reinforcement contingency between reward and attentional orienting is a critical determinant of reinforcement learning-based spatial attentional modulation. Our findings highlight that a spatial attentional bias is shaped by value via reinforcement learning.

Reward-related distracters and working memory filtering

Reward-related stimuli capture attention, even when they are task irrelevant. A consequence of attentional prioritization of reward-related stimuli is that they may also have preferential access to working memory like other forms of emotional information. However, whether reward-related distracters leak into working memory remains unknown. Here, using a well-validated change detection task of visual working memory capacity and filtering, we conducted two studies to directly assess the impact of reward-related distracters on working memory. In both studies, the distracters consisted of colored bars or circles that were previously associated with monetary reward. In Experiment 1, results indicated that previously rewarded distracters did not impact behavioral measures of working memory filtering efficiency compared to neutral distracters. In Experiment 2, using ERPs, we measured the contralateral delay activity (CDA), a psychophysiological index of the number of items retained in working memory, to further assess filtering efficiency. We observed that the CDA for high reward distracters was similar to low reward and neutral distracters. However, in early trials, behavioral measures revealed that previously rewarded stimuli negatively impacted working memory capacity, an effect not observed with neutral distracters. This effect, though, was not found for the CDA in early trials. In summary, our findings across two studies suggest that attentional capture by task-irrelevant reward may have minimal impact on visual working memory-findings that have important implications for delineating the boundaries of reward-cognition interactions.

Weight Status and Attentional Biases Toward Foods: Impact of Implicit Olfactory Priming

Objective: Numerous studies highlight the involvement of cognitive factors in the development and maintenance of obesity. We aimed to measure attentional biases (AB) toward foods (i.e., the individual tendency to automatically orient one's attention toward food stimuli) in normal-weight (NW) individuals and those with overweight (OW) and obesity (OB). We evaluated whether implicit or explicit exposure to olfactory food cues could modify AB. Methods: Eighty-five participants with different weight statuses took part in this experiment. We measured AB toward food pictures with an adapted visual probe task and the variations in AB, while participants were primed with olfactory food cues (within-subject design: no odor/low-energy dense food odor/high-energy dense food odor). Odors were non-attentively perceived during session 1 (implicit condition) and attentively perceived during session 2 (explicit condition). Results: Our results highlighted AB toward food pictures, especially when foods were energy dense, regardless of weight status (p < 0.001). The olfactory priming effect was only significant in the implicit condition. Participants with obesity had a stronger AB toward foods when they were primed with a non-attentively perceived high-energy dense food odor than with a non-attentively perceived low-energy dense food odor (p = 0.02). The trend was reversed for normal-weight participants, while no significant effect was found for participants with overweight. Conclusion: Our results support the hypothesis that an obesity-specific cognitive vulnerability may influence the processing of food-related stimuli and only while food cues are non-attentively perceived. Future research should seek to understand the mechanisms of this phenomenon.

Reward differentially interacts with physical salience in feature-based attention

A visual feature associated with reward can capture attention when it is neither physically salient nor task relevant. Although such findings suggest that reward acts similarly as physical salience, it is unknown whether reward works independently or interactively with physical salience to modulate attentional priority. Here, we first trained participants to associate two motion directions with high and low reward. During the test, we presented superimposed but perceptually separable stimuli that consisted of coherently and randomly moving dot fields, while manipulating the physical salience (low vs. high contrast) and reward history (low vs. high reward) of the coherent stimulus. Participants were instructed to identify speed-up targets on the coherent or random stimulus. We found that reward improved target detection in the coherent stimulus regardless of the physical contrast, whereas reward disrupted target detection in the random stimulus only when the coherent stimulus was of high contrast. Our findings thus suggest that goal-directed, feature-specific selection determines the pattern of interaction between reward and physical salience, such that they contribute either independently or interactively to attentional priority. We propose two possible mechanisms that can account for the intricate patterns of influence among multiple sources of priority.

Do Reward-Related Distractors Impair Cognitive Performance? Perhaps Not

Over a hundred prior studies show that reward-related distractors capture attention. It is less clear, however, whether and when reward-related distractors affect performance on tasks that require cognitive control. In this experiment, we examined whether reward-related distractors impair performance during a demanding arithmetic task. Participants (N = 81) solved math problems, while they were exposed to task-irrelevant stimuli that were previously associated with monetary rewards (vs. not). Although we found some evidence for reward learning in the training phase, results from the test phase showed no evidence that reward-related distractors harm cognitive performance. This null effect was invariant across different versions of our task. We examined the results further with Bayesian analyses, which showed positive evidence for the null. Altogether, the present study showed that reward-related distractors did not harm performance on a mental arithmetic task. When considered together with previous studies, the present study suggests that the negative impact of reward-related distractors on cognitive control is not as straightforward as it may seem, and that more research is needed to clarify the circumstances under which reward-related distractors harm cognitive control.

Neurobiology of value-driven attention

What we pay attention to is influenced by reward learning. Converging evidence points to the idea that associative reward learning changes how visual stimuli are processed in the brain, rendering learned reward cues difficult to ignore. Behavioral evidence distinguishes value-driven attention from other established control mechanisms, suggesting a distinct underlying neurobiological process. Recently, studies have begun to explore the neural substrates of this value-driven attention mechanism. Here, I review the progress that has been made in this area, and synthesize the findings to provide an integrative account of the neurobiology of value-driven attention. The proposed account can explain both attentional capture by previously rewarded targets and the modulatory effect of reward on priming, as well as the decoupling of reward history and prior task relevance in value-driven attention.

Selection history: How reward modulates selectivity of visual attention

Visual attention enables us to selectively prioritize or suppress information in the environment. Prominent models concerned with the control of visual attention differentiate between goal-directed, top-down and stimulus-driven, bottom-up control, with the former determined by current selection goals and the latter determined by physical salience. In the current review, we discuss recent studies that demonstrate that attentional selection does not need to be the result of top-down or bottom-up processing but, instead, is often driven by lingering biases due to the "history" of former attention deployments. This review mainly focuses on reward-based history effects; yet other types of history effects such as (intertrial) priming, statistical learning and affective conditioning are also discussed. We argue that evidence from behavioral, eye-movement and neuroimaging studies supports the idea that selection history modulates the topographical landscape of spatial "priority" maps, such that attention is biased toward locations having the highest activation on this map.

Immunity to attentional capture at ignored locations

Certain stimuli have the power to rapidly and involuntarily capture spatial attention against our will. The present study investigated whether such stimuli capture spatial attention even when they appear in ignored regions of visual space. In other words, which force is more powerful: attentional capture or spatial filtering? Participants performed a spatial cuing task, searching for a letter target defined by color (e.g., green) and then reporting that letter's identity. Two of the four search locations were always irrelevant. Unlike many previous experiments, participants were forced to ignore these locations because they always contained a target-colored distractor letter. Experiment 1 assessed capture by a salient-but-irrelevant abrupt onset cue appearing 150 ms before the search display. One might expect onset cues to capture attention even at ignored locations given that the main function of capture, presumably, is to rapidly alert observers to unexpected yet potentially important stimuli. However, they did not. Experiment 2 replicated this result with a different neutral baseline condition. Experiment 3 replicated the absence of capture effects at ignored locations with an even more potent stimulus: a relevant cue possessing the target color. We propose that people are effectively immune to attentional capture by objects in ignored locations - spatial filtering dominates attentional capture.

Mixed signals: The effect of conflicting reward- and goal-driven biases on selective attention

Attentional selection depends on the interaction between exogenous (stimulus-driven), endogenous (goal-driven), and selection history (experience-driven) factors. While endogenous and exogenous biases have been widely investigated, less is known about their interplay with value-driven attention. The present study investigated the interaction between reward-history and goal-driven biases on perceptual sensitivity (d') and response time (RT) in a modified cueing paradigm presenting two coloured cues, followed by sinusoidal gratings. Participants responded to the orientation of one of these gratings. In Experiment 1, one cue signalled reward availability but was otherwise task irrelevant. In Experiment 2, the same cue signalled reward, and indicated the target's most likely location at the opposite side of the display. This design introduced a conflict between reward-driven biases attracting attention and goal-driven biases directing it away. Attentional effects were examined comparing trials in which cue and target appeared at the same versus opposite locations. Two interstimulus interval (ISI) levels were used to probe the time course of attentional effects. Experiment 1 showed performance benefits at the location of the reward-signalling cue and costs at the opposite for both ISIs, indicating value-driven capture. Experiment 2 showed performance benefits only for the long ISI when the target was at the opposite to the reward-associated cue. At the short ISI, only performance costs were observed. These results reveal the time course of these biases, indicating that reward-driven effects influence attention early but can be overcome later by goal-driven control. This suggests that reward-driven biases are integrated as attentional priorities, just as exogenous and endogenous factors.

On the value-dependence of value-driven attentional capture

Findings from an increasingly large number of studies have been used to argue that attentional capture can be dependent on the learned value of a stimulus, or value-driven. However, under certain circumstances attention can be biased to select stimuli that previously served as targets, independent of reward history. Value-driven attentional capture, as studied using the training phase-test phase design introduced by Anderson and colleagues, is widely presumed to reflect the combined influence of learned value and selection history. However, the degree to which attentional capture is at all dependent on value learning in this paradigm has recently been questioned. Support for value-dependence can be provided through one of two means: (1) greater attentional capture by prior targets following rewarded training than following unrewarded training, and (2) greater attentional capture by prior targets previously associated with high compared to low value. Using a variant of the original value-driven attentional capture paradigm, Sha and Jiang (Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 78, 403-414, 2016) failed to find evidence of either, and raised criticisms regarding the adequacy of evidence provided by prior studies using this particular paradigm. To address this disparity, here we provided a stringent test of the value-dependence hypothesis using the traditional value-driven attentional capture paradigm. With a sufficiently large sample size, value-dependence was observed based on both criteria, with no evidence of attentional capture without rewards during training. Our findings support the validity of the traditional value-driven attentional capture paradigm in measuring what its name purports to measure.