Assessing the role of accuracy-based feedback in value-driven attentional capture

Manipulating the reliability of target-color information modulates value-driven attentional capture

Previously rewarded stimuli slow response times (RTs) during visual search, despite being physically non-salient and no longer task-relevant or rewarding. Such value-driven attentional capture (VDAC) has been measured in a training-test paradigm. In the training phase, the search target is rendered in one of two colors (one predicting high reward and the other low reward). In this study, we modified this traditional training phase to include pre-cues that signaled reliable or unreliable information about the trial-to-trial color of the training phase search target. Reliable pre-cues indicated the upcoming target color with certainty, whereas unreliable pre-cues indicated the target was equally likely to be one of two distinct colors. Thus reliable and unreliable pre-cues provided certain and uncertain information, respectively, about the magnitude of the upcoming reward. We then tested for VDAC in a traditional test phase. We found that unreliably pre-cued distractors slowed RTs and drew more initial eye movements during search for the test-phase target, relative to reliably pre-cued distractors, thus providing novel evidence for an influence of information reliability on attentional capture. That said, our experimental manipulation also eliminated value-dependency (i.e., slowed RTs when a high-reward-predicting distractor was present relative to a low-reward-predicting distractor) for both kinds of distractors. Taken together, these results suggest that target-color uncertainty, rather than reward magnitude, played a critical role in modulating the allocation of value-driven attention in this study.

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.

Testing reward-cue attentional salience: Attainment and dynamic changes

A great wealth of studies has investigated the capacity of motivationally relevant stimuli to bias attention, suggesting that reward predicting cues are prioritized even when reward is no longer delivered and when attending to such stimuli is detrimental to reward achievement. Despite multiple procedures have been adopted to unveil the mechanisms whereby reward cues gain attentional salience, some open questions remain. Indeed, mechanisms different from motivation can be responsible for the capture of attention triggered by the reward cue. In addition, we note that at present only a few studies have sought to address whether the cue attractiveness dynamically follows changes in the associated reward value. Investigating how and to what extent the salience of the reward cue is updated when motivation changes, could help shedding light on how reward‐cues attain and maintain their capacity to attract attention, and therefore on apparent irrational attentive behaviors.

Reward-driven attention alters perceived salience

Many studies have revealed that reward-associated features capture attention. Neurophysiological evidence further suggests that this reward-driven attention effect modulates visual processes by enhancing low-level visual salience. However, no behavioral study to date has directly examined whether reward-driven attention changes how people see. Combining the two-phase paradigm with a psychophysical method, the current study found that compared with nonsalient cues associated with lower reward, the nonsalient cues associated with higher reward captured more attention, and increased the perceived contrast of the subsequent stimuli. This is the first direct behavioral evidence of the effect of reward-driven attention on low-level visual perception.

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.

Learned prioritization yields attentional biases through selection history

While numerous studies have provided evidence for selection history as a robust influence on attentional allocation, it is unclear precisely which behavioral factors can result in this form of attentional bias. In the current study, we focus on “learned prioritization” as an underlying mechanism of selection history and its effects on selective attention. We conducted two experiments, each starting with a training phase to ensure that participants learned different stimulus priorities. This was accomplished via a visual search task in which a specific color was consistently more relevant when presented together with another given color. In Experiment 1, one color was always prioritized over another color and inferior to a third color, such that each color had an equal overall priority by the end of the training session. In Experiment 2, the three different colors had unequal priorities at the end of the training session. A subsequent testing phase in which participants had to search for a shape-defined target showed that only stimuli with unequal overall priorities (Experiment 2) affected attentional selection, with increased reaction times when a distractor was presented in a previously high-priority compared with a low-priority color. These results demonstrate that adopting an attentional set where certain stimuli are prioritized over others can result in a lingering attentional bias and further suggest that selection history does not equally operate on all previously selected stimuli. Finally, we propose that findings in value-driven attention studies where high-value and low-value signaling stimuli differentially capture attention may be a result of learned prioritization rather than reward.

Investigating the role of exogenous cueing on selection history formation

An abundance of recent empirical data suggest that repeatedly allocating visual attention to task-relevant and/or reward-predicting features in the visual world engenders an attentional bias for these frequently attended stimuli, even when they become task irrelevant and no longer predict reward. In short, attentional selection in the past hinders voluntary control of attention in the present. But do such enduring attentional biases rely on a history of voluntary, goal-directed attentional selection, or can they be generated through involuntary, effortless attentional allocation? An abrupt visual onset triggers such a reflexive allocation of covert spatial attention to its location in the visual field, automatically modulating numerous aspects of visual perception. In this Registered Report, we asked whether a selection history that has been reflexively and involuntarily derived (i.e., through abrupt-onset cueing) also interferes with goal-directed attentional control, even in the complete absence of exogenous cues. To build spatially distinct histories of exogenous selection, we presented abrupt-onset cues twice as often at one of two task locations, and as expected, these cues reflexively modulated visual processing: task accuracy increased, and response times (RTs) decreased, when the cue appeared near the target's location, relative to that of the distractor. Upon removal of these cues, however, we found no evidence that exogenous selection history modulated task performance: task accuracy and RTs at the previously most-cued and previously least-cued sides were statistically indistinguishable. Thus, unlike voluntarily directed attention, involuntary attentional allocation may not be sufficient to engender historically contingent selection biases.

Neural correlates of attentional capture by stimuli previously associated with social reward

Our attention is strongly influenced by reward learning. Stimuli previously associated with monetary reward have been shown to automatically capture attention in both behavioral and neurophysiological studies. Stimuli previously associated with positive social feedback similarly capture attention; however, it is unknown whether such social facilitation of attention relies on similar or dissociable neural systems. Here, we used the value-driven attentional capture paradigm in an fMRI study to identify the neural correlates of attention to stimuli previously associated with social reward. The results reveal learning-dependent priority signals in the contralateral visual cortex, posterior parietal cortex, and caudate tail, similar to studies using monetary reward. An additional priority signal was consistently evident in the right middle frontal gyrus (MFG). Our findings support the notion of a common neural mechanism for directing attention on the basis of selection history that generalizes across different types of reward.

Dissociable neural mechanisms underlie value-driven and selection-driven attentional capture

Stimuli associated with reward acquire the ability to automatically capture attention. It is also the case that, with sufficient training, former targets can acquire the ability to capture attention in the absence of extrinsic rewards. It remains unclear whether these two experience-dependent attentional biases share a common underlying mechanism. The present study examined the influence of selection history on attentional capture, and compared its neural correlates with those of value-driven attentional capture reported in Anderson et al. (2014a). Participants completed a four-day training in visual search for a specific colour target. In a subsequent test phase, they performed visual search for a shape-defined target in which colour was task-irrelevant. Response times were slower when a former target-colour distractor was present than when it was absent, replicating attentional capture by unrewarded former targets. Neuroimaging results revealed preferential activation by a former target-colour distractor in sensory areas. A more right lateralised pattern of activation was observed, compared to attentional capture by reward cues. No distractor-evoked activity was found in the caudate tail. These results imply that attentional capture by selection history is primarily driven by plasticity in sensory areas, and that reward history and selection history influence attention via dissociable underlying mechanisms.

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.