The effect of reward on orienting and reorienting in exogenous cuing

Impact of relative and absolute values on orienting attention in time

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.

Rewards weaken cross-modal inhibition of return with visual targets

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.

Linguistic Skill and Stimulus-Driven Attention: A Case for Linguistic Relativity

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.

Altered Pain Processing Associated with Administration of Dopamine Agonist and Antagonist in Healthy Volunteers

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.

The effect of visually evoked innate fear on reward-associated conditional response and reversal learning in mice

The response to visually evoked innate fear is essential for survival and impacts the cognition and behavior of animals to threats in the environment. However, contradictory findings of the interaction of fear and executive behaviors were reported by previous studies. To address this question, the present study investigated the effect of looming stimuli-driven visually innate fear on reward-associated conditioned response and reversal learning in mice with low or high motivation for sucrose. The mice with low motivation exposed to looming stimuli displayed reduced efficiency in the test of conditional response in the fixed ratio 1 schedule and impaired executive motivation as tested in the progressive ratio schedule of reinforcement. However, the high motivated mice exposed to looming stimuli showed an unaffected conditional response but an increased executive motivation. In the reversal learning program, looming stimuli at the middle stage caused deficits in cognitive flexibility in the mice with low and high motivation. Therefore, these results illuminate the impact of visually evoked innate fear on conditional response and reversal learning and further show that the impacts are relevant to internal motivation and external fear stimuli.

Guiding spatial attention by multimodal reward cues

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.

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.

Aberrant Salient and Corticolimbic Connectivity in Hypersexual Parkinson's Disease

Introduction: Impulse control disorders (ICDs) represent a side effect of dopaminergic medication in Parkinson's disease (PD). Patients experience an excessive desire toward natural rewards paired with uncontrolled actions. Yet, the precise neural and behavioral mechanisms associated with ICDs and, importantly, each specific subdomain remain unclear. We aim to decipher resting-state and corticolimbic functional connectivity in PD patients with and without hypersexual ICD. Materials and Methods: Seventeen PD patients with hypersexuality (PD+HS) and 15 PD patients without hypersexuality (PD-HS) underwent two sessions (with and without medication) of resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging and were compared with 17 healthy controls. Dual-regression independent component analyses extracted salience, sensorimotor, default-mode, and central executive networks. Seed-based functional connectivity with three striatal subdivisions (motor, associative, and limbic) was obtained and significant changes were correlated with key impulsivity and inhibitory measures. Results: Enhanced salience network (SN) activity represented by a significant rise in the right inferior frontal gyrus was found in PD+HS compared with PD-HS. Connectivity analyses revealed a functional disconnection between associative and limbic striatum with precuneus and superior parietal lobe in PD+HS, some connections explained by abnormal sexual behavior and inhibition in PD+HS. Conclusions: Hypersexual ICD is associated with enhanced SN signaling and corticolimbic disconnections, including striatal associative and limbic loops that contribute to altered control of sexually driven behavior and overall severity in PD and ICD.

Neural Mechanisms of Reward-by-Cueing Interactions: ERP Evidence

Inhibition of return (IOR) refers to the phenomenon that a person is slower to respond to targets at a previously cued location. The present study aimed to explore whether target-reward association is subject to IOR, using event-related potentials (ERPs) to explore the underlying neural mechanism. Each participant performed a localization task and a color discrimination task in an exogenous cueing paradigm, with the targets presented in colors (green/red) previously associated with high- or low-reward probability. The results of both tasks revealed that the N1, Nd, and P3 components exhibited differential amplitudes between cued and uncued trials (i.e., IOR) under low reward, with the N1 and Nd amplitudes being enhanced for uncued trials compared to cued trials, and the P3 amplitude being enhanced for cued trials vs. uncued trials. Under high reward, however, no difference was found between the amplitudes on cued and uncued trials for any of the components. These findings demonstrate that targets that were previously associated with high reward can be resistant to IOR and the current results enrich the evidence for interactions between reward-association and attentional orientation in the cueing paradigm.

Reward makes the rhythmic sampling of spatial attention emerge earlier

A growing body of evidence demonstrates a rhythmic characteristic of spatial attention, with the corresponding behavioral performance fluctuating periodically. Here, we investigate whether and how the rhythmic characteristic of spatial attention is affected by reward-an important factor in attentional selection. We adopted the classic spatial cueing paradigm with a time-resolved stimulus-onset-asynchrony (SOA) between the spatial cue and the target such that responses to the target in different phases could be examined. The color of the spatial cue was associated with either a high or low level of reward. Results showed that in the low-frequency band (<2 Hz) where classic exogenous spatial attention effects (i.e., facilitation and inhibition of return; IOR) appeared, reward enhanced the late IOR effect through facilitating behavioral responses to the target at the uncued location. Recurring lower alpha power (alpha inhibition) which fluctuated in a low-theta frequency (2-3 Hz) was observed at the cued location relative to the uncued location, irrespective of the reward level of the cue. Importantly, the recurring alpha inhibition emerged earlier (~120 ms) in the high-reward condition relative to the low-reward condition. We propose that the recurring alpha inhibition at the cued location implies a recurring attention sampling at the cued location and the expectation of a high reward makes the periodic attention sampling emerge earlier.

Monetary incentives have only limited effects on auditory distraction: evidence for the automaticity of cross-modal attention capture

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.

Social information rapidly prioritizes overt but not covert attention in a joint spatial cueing task

Coordinating actions with others is crucial for our survival. Our ability to see what others are seeing and to align our visual attention with them facilitates these joint actions. In the present research, we set out to increase our understanding of such joint attention by investigating the extent to which social information would be able to prioritize overt (when moving the eyes to attend) and covert (when shifting attention without eye movements) attention in a joint spatial cueing task. Participants saw a cue and detected a target at the same or a different location alongside an unseen partner of either higher or lower social rank. In a novel twist, participants were led to believe that the cue was connected to the gaze location of their partner. In Experiment 1, where participants were told to not move their eyes (covert attention), the partner's social rank did not change how quickly participants detected targets. But in Experiment 2, where participants were free to move their eyes naturally (overt attention), inhibition of return effects (slower responses to cued than uncued targets) were modulated by their partner's social rank. These social top-down effects occurred already at a short SOA of 150 ms. Our findings suggest that overt attention might provide a key tool for joint action, as it is penetrable for social information at the early stages of information processing.

Different temporal dynamics of object-based attentional allocation for reward and non-reward objects

Previous studies have confirmed that both non-reward objects (such as rectangles) and reward objects (such as banknotes) can guide the allocation of our attention; however, it is unclear whether the allocation mode of attention for reward objects is the same as for non-reward objects. This study aims to evaluate different modes of object-based attentional selection elicited by two types of objects: reward objects and non-reward objects. In our analysis, we used a two-rectangle paradigm in which two objects were presented visually. In a series of four experiments, we found a constant object-based effect with non-reward objects, such as rectangles and umbrellas, as stimuli in all of the stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) conditions (Experiments 1 and 4), but the object-based effect disappeared only at longer SOA with reward objects such as monetary and food objects as stimuli (Experiments 2 and 3). Moreover, we found that monetary and food objects induced similar object-based effects. These results suggest that the temporal dynamics of object-based attentional allocation are different with respect to reward and non-reward objects, and different types of reward objects can guide attentional allocation in a similar way.

Sudden onsets reflexively drive spatial attention, but those that predict reward do more

The sudden appearance of an unexpected object elicits the automatic allocation of spatial attention. Even without eye movements, effortless, but transient, improvements in perception occur at the onset location. Much is known about the consequences of such exogenously elicited shifts of covert attention, but most research has used stimuli that carry very little, if any, additional information. In everyday life, attention is captured by sudden onsets that, due to past experience, alert us to more than just their appearance. An abundance of recent work has shed light on the interaction of associative learning and attention, leading to refinements in current models of attentional control; in this study, we tested two hypotheses concerning the efficacy of meaning-imbued onsets, specifically those that predict reward, to drive the reflexive allocation of covert spatial attention and to improve task performance more generally. First, spatially uninformative, abrupt-onset cues that are predictive of reward may elicit the involuntary allocation of attention more effectively than nonreward-predictive onsets; second, the presence of peripheral cues that are predictive of reward, regardless of validity, may impact global attentional processes in a spatially nonspecific manner. We paired monetary reward with one of two luminance-defined, abrupt-onset cues and measured each cue's ability to modulate performance in a visual task. Replicating research with nonmeaning-imbued stimuli, both kinds of abrupt onsets reflexively improved visual perception at attended, relative to unattended, locations. However, when features of the onset predicted the availability of monetary reward, enhancements in perception become less constrained, spreading rapidly to other task-relevant locations.

Reward supports flexible orienting of attention to category information and influences subsequent memory

Preparatory control of attention facilitates the efficient processing and encoding of an expected stimulus. However, this can occur at the expense of increasing the processing cost of unexpected stimuli. Preparatory control can be influenced by motivational factors, such as the expectation of a reward. Interestingly, expectation of a high reward can increase target processing, as well as reduce the cost associated with reorienting. Using a semantic cueing paradigm, we examined the interaction of reward expectation and cue-validity on semantic judgment performance and subsequent memory. Preparatory attention was assessed with pupillometry. Valid category cueing was associated with better semantic judgment performance and better subsequent memory compared to invalidly cued items. Higher reward also resulted in a larger pre-target pupil diameter, which could be indicative of increased preparatory task engagement or arousal. Critically, higher reward also reduced reorienting cost in both semantic judgment and subsequent memory performance. Our findings suggest that reward expectation can facilitate the effective control of preparatory attention for semantic information, and can support optimal goal-directed behavior based on changing task demands.

The Puzzling Relationship between Attention and Motivation: Do Motor Biases Matter?

The relationship between attention and incentive motivation has been mostly examined by administering Posner style cueing tasks in humans and varying monetary stakes. These studies found that higher incentives improved performance independently of spatial attention. However, the ability of the cueing task to measure actual attentional orienting has been debated by several groups that have highlighted the function of the motor system in affecting the behavioral features that are commonly attributed to spatial attention. To determine the impact of motor influences on the interplay between attention and motivation, we administered 2 reaching versions of a cueing task to monkeys in various motor scenarios. In both tasks, a central stimulus indicated the reward stake and predicted the stimulus target location in 80% of trials. In Experiment 1, subjects were requested to report the detection of a target stimulus in each trial. In Experiment 2, the task was modified to fit a paradigm of Go/NoGo target identification. We found that attention and motivation interacted exclusively in Experiment 2, wherein anticipated motor activation was discouraged and more demanding visual processing was imposed. Consequently, we suggest a protocol that provides novel insights into the study of the relationship between spatial attention and motivation and highlights the influence of the arm motor system in the estimation of the deployment of spatial attention.

Visual Selection: Usually Fast and Automatic; Seldom Slow and Volitional

Recently it was argued that in addition to top-down and bottom-up processes, lingering biases of selection history play a major role in visual selection (Awh, Belopolsky & Theeuwes, 2012). Since its publication there has been a growing controversy about the terms top-down, bottom-up and selection-history in relation to visual selection. In the current paper we define these terms, discuss some controversies about these terms and explain what kind of effects should be considered to be the result of lingering biases of selection history, i.e., priming, reward/fear, and statistical learning. We discuss the properties of top-down selection (slow, effortful, and controlled) versus the properties of lingering biases of selection history (fast, effortless, and automatic). We adhere the position that the experience with selecting a particular feature or the location of a feature, may boost and sharpen its representation within the priority selection map above and beyond its physical salience. It is as if the experience may render a feature or location subjectively more salient. Our message of the current review is that true top-down control of visual selection occurs far less often than what is typically assumed. Most of the time, selection is based on experience and history. It is fast, automatic and occurs without much, if any, effort.

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.

Miss it and miss out: Counterproductive nonspatial attentional capture by task-irrelevant, value-related stimuli

Recent studies of visual search suggest that learning about valued outcomes (rewards and punishments) influences the likelihood that distractors will capture spatial attention and slow search for a target, even when those value-related distractors have never themselves been the targets of search. In the present study, we demonstrated a related effect in the context of temporal, rather than spatial, selection. Participants were presented with a temporal stream of pictures in a fixed central location and had to identify the orientation of a rotated target picture. Response accuracy was reduced if the rotated target was preceded by a "valued" distractor picture that signaled that a correct response to the target would be rewarded (and an incorrect response punished), relative to a distractor picture that did not signal reward or punishment. This effect of signal value on response accuracy was short-lived, being most prominent with a short lag between distractor and target. Impairment caused by a valued distractor was observed if participants were explicitly instructed regarding its relation to reward/punishment (Exps. 1, 3, and 4), or if they could learn this relationship only via trial-by-trial experience (Exp. 2). These findings show that the influence of signal value on attentional capture extends to temporal selection, and also demonstrate that value-related distractors can interfere with the conscious perception of subsequent target information.

Probing the role of the vestibular system in motivation and reward-based attention

The vestibular system has widespread connections in the central nervous system. Several activation loci following vestibular stimulations have been notably reported in deep, limbic areas that are otherwise difficult to reach and modulate in healthy subjects. Following preliminary evidence, suggesting that such stimulations might affect mood and affective processing, we wondered whether the vestibular system is also involved in motivation. Evolutionary accounts suggest that visuo-vestibular mismatches might have a role in preventing the search for and exploitation of goods that previously resulted in aversive reactions, as they would be a fine warning signal which follows the contact with or ingestion of noxious neurotoxins. The first question was thus whether vestibular stimulation alters sensitivity to reward. Secondly, we sought to assess whether attention is allocated in space differently when cued by highly motivational stimuli, and if this interplay is further modulated by the vestibular system. In order to evaluate both motivational and attentional assets, we administered a Posner-like cueing task to 30 healthy subjects concurrently receiving sham or galvanic vestibular stimulation (GVS; Left-Anodal and Right-Anodal configurations). The participants had to discriminate targets appearing in either exogenously cued or uncued locations (50% validity); cues predicted the amount of points (0, 2, or 10) and thus money that they could earn for a correct response. The results highlight a robust inhibition of return (IOR) (faster responses for invalidly-cued targets) which was not modulated by different levels of reward or GVS. Across all stimulation sessions, rewards exerted a powerful beneficial effect over performance: reaction times were faster when rewards were at stake. However, this effect was largest in sham, but greatly reduced in GVS conditions, most notably with the Right-Anodal configuration. This is the first evidence for a decreased sensitivity to rewards causally induced by a perturbation of the vestibular system. While future studies will shed light on its neural underpinnings and clinical implications, here we argue that GVS could be a safe and promising way to enrich our understanding of reward processes and eventually tackle the management of patients with aberrant sensitivity to rewards.

Top-Down Prioritization of Salient Items May Produce the So-Called Stimulus-Driven Capture

The current study proposes that top-down attentional prioritization of salient items may produce the so-called stimulus-driven capture. To test this proposal, the “expectation-based paradigm” was designed on the basis of a visual search task. In Experiment 1, a task-irrelevant singleton frame was presented at the same location in 70% of the trials. The target was either presented at chance level within the singleton location, or away from it. In line with the singleton capture phenomenon, participants were faster in identifying the target when it appeared in the singleton location compared to non-singleton locations. However, leaving out the singleton frame in 30% of the trials led to a similar effect; participants were faster in identifying the target when it appeared in the expected singleton location compared to expected non-singletons locations (a “quasi-capture” effect). These results suggest that the participants allocated their attention to the expected singleton location, rather than that the singleton itself captured attention. In Experiment 2, the same task-irrelevant color singleton was presented in a random position in 70% of the trials. This color frame was shown as a non-singleton in all of the 30% singleton-absent multicolored trials. A similar facilitation effect was obtained when the target appeared in the expected singleton color frame compared to other frames, in singleton-absent trials as in singleton-present trials. These results further support the idea that instances of singleton capture can be explained by top-down attentional shifts toward singleton items. Theoretical implications of these results are discussed. Mostly, the study calls to consider the possibility that all sources of attentional control may be represented by a continuous variable of top-down control, including the category of “physical salience.”

Social Beliefs and Visual Attention: How the Social Relevance of a Cue Influences Spatial Orienting

We are highly tuned to each other's visual attention. Perceiving the eye or hand movements of another person can influence the timing of a saccade or the reach of our own. However, the explanation for such spatial orienting in interpersonal contexts remains disputed. Is it due to the social appearance of the cue—a hand or an eye—or due to its social relevance—a cue that is connected to another person with attentional and intentional states? We developed an interpersonal version of the Posner spatial cueing paradigm. Participants saw a cue and detected a target at the same or a different location, while interacting with an unseen partner. Participants were led to believe that the cue was either connected to the gaze location of their partner or was generated randomly by a computer (Experiment 1), and that their partner had higher or lower social rank while engaged in the same or a different task (Experiment 2). We found that spatial cue‐target compatibility effects were greater when the cue related to a partner's gaze. This effect was amplified by the partner's social rank, but only when participants believed their partner was engaged in the same task. Taken together, this is strong evidence in support of the idea that spatial orienting is interpersonally attuned to the social relevance of the cue—whether the cue is connected to another person, who this person is, and what this person is doing—and does not exclusively rely on the social appearance of the cue. Visual attention is not only guided by the physical salience of one's environment but also by the mental representation of its social relevance.

Don't let it distract you: how information about the availability of reward affects attentional selection

Previous research has shown that attentional selection is affected by reward contingencies: previously selected and rewarded stimuli continue to capture attention even if the reward contingencies are no longer in place. In the current study, we investigated whether attentional selection also is affected by stimuli that merely signal the magnitude of reward available on a given trial but, crucially, have never had instrumental value. In a series of experiments, we show that a stimulus signaling high reward availability captures attention even when that stimulus is and was never physically salient or part of the task set, and selecting it is harmful for obtaining reward. Our results suggest that irrelevant reward-signaling stimuli capture attention, because participants have learned about the relationship between the stimulus and reward. Importantly, we only observed learning after initial attentional prioritization of the reward signaling stimulus. We conclude that nonsalient, task-irrelevant but reward-signaling stimuli can affect attentional selection above and beyond top-down or bottom-up attentional control, however, only after such stimuli were initially prioritized for selection.

Pavlovian reward learning underlies value driven attentional capture

Recent evidence shows that distractors that signal high compared to low reward availability elicit stronger attentional capture, even when this is detrimental for task-performance. This suggests that simply correlating stimuli with reward administration, rather than their instrumental relationship with obtaining reward, produces value-driven attentional capture. However, in previous studies, reward delivery was never response independent, as only correct responses were rewarded, nor was it completely task-irrelevant, as the distractor signaled the magnitude of reward that could be earned on that trial. In two experiments, we ensured that associative reward learning was completely response independent by letting participants perform a task at fixation, while high and low rewards were automatically administered following the presentation of task-irrelevant colored stimuli in the periphery (Experiment 1) or at fixation (Experiment 2). In a following non-reward test phase, using the additional singleton paradigm, the previously reward signaling stimuli were presented as distractors to assess truly task-irrelevant value driven attentional capture. The results showed that high compared to low reward-value associated distractors impaired performance, and thus captured attention more strongly. This suggests that genuine Pavlovian conditioning of stimulus-reward contingencies is sufficient to obtain value-driven attentional capture. Furthermore, value-driven attentional capture can occur following associative reward learning of temporally and spatially task-irrelevant distractors that signal the magnitude of available reward (Experiment 1), and is independent of training spatial shifts of attention towards the reward signaling stimuli (Experiment 2). This confirms and strengthens the idea that Pavlovian reward learning underlies value driven attentional capture.

Appetitive and aversive outcome associations modulate exogenous cueing

In two experiments, we utilized an exogenous cueing task in which different-colored abrupt-onset cues were associated with an appetitive (gain of 10 cents), aversive (loss of 5 cents), or neutral (no gain or loss) outcome. Reward delivery did not depend on performance, but instead the specific exogenous cues were always followed by their corresponding outcome in a classical-conditioning-like manner. Compared to neutral cues and independent of cue-target delay, the results of Experiment 1 showed that appetitive cues strengthened attentional capture, whereas aversive cues reduced attentional capture. The data revealed that both appetitive and aversive cues initially facilitated responding at the validly cued location. At the long cue-target delays, however, this facilitation effect at the validly cued location remained present for gain-associated cues while it reversed for loss-associated cues. The results of Experiment 2 confirmed these findings by showing that both neutral and aversive cues initially facilitated responding at the cued location and that, at long cue-target delays, aversive cues elicited stronger reorienting away from the cued location as compared to neutral cues. Together these findings indicate that all abrupt-onset cues initially capture attention independent of their outcome association. Yet, if time passes, attention remains lingering at the location of gain-associated cues, whereas attention is released and reoriented away from the location of loss-associated cues. Altogether, we show that associating the color of an abrupt-onset cue with an appetitive or aversive outcome can modulate attentional deployment following exogenous cueing.

Effects of reward on oculomotor control

The present study examines the extent to which distractors that signal the availability of monetary reward on a given trial affect eye movements. We used a novel eye movement task in which observers had to follow a target around the screen while ignoring distractors presented at varying locations. We examined the effects of reward magnitude and distractor location on a host of oculomotor properties, including saccade latency, amplitude, landing position, curvature, and erroneous saccades toward the distractor. We found consistent effects of reward magnitude on classic oculomotor phenomena such as the remote distractor effect, the global effect, and oculomotor capture by the distractor. We also show that a distractor in the visual hemifield opposite to the target had a larger effect on oculomotor control than an equidistant distractor in the same hemifield as the target. Bayesian hierarchical drift diffusion modeling revealed large differences in drift rate depending on the reward value, location, and visual hemifield of the distractor stimulus. Our findings suggest that high reward distractors not only capture the eyes but also affect a multitude of oculomotor properties associated with oculomotor inhibition and control.

Reward can modulate attentional capture, independent of top-down set

The traditional distinction between exogenous and endogenous attentional control has recently been enriched with an additional mode of control, termed “selection history.” Recent findings have indicated, for instance, that previously rewarded or punished stimuli capture more attention than their physical attributes would predict. As such, the value that is associated with certain stimuli modulates attentional capture. This particular influence has also been shown for endogenous attention. Although recent leads have emerged, elucidating the influences of reward on exogenous and endogenous attention, it remains unclear to what extent exogenous attention is modulated by reward when endogenous attention is already deployed. We used a Posner cueing task in which exogenous and endogenous cues were presented to guide attention. Crucially, the exogenous cue also indicated the reward value. That is, the color of the exogenous cue indicated how much reward could be obtained on a given trial. The results showed main effects of endogenous and exogenous attention (i.e., speeded reaction times when either cue was valid, as compared to when it was invalid). Crucially, an interaction between exogenous cue validity and reward level was observed, indicating that reward-based associative-learning processes rapidly influence attentional capture, even when endogenous attention has been actively deployed.

Multiple influences of reward on perception and attention

Visual processing is influenced by stimulus-driven and goal-driven factors. Recent interest has centered on understanding how reward might provide additional contributions to visual perception and unraveling the underlying neural mechanisms. In this review, I suggest that the impact of reward on vision is not unitary and depends on the type of experimental manipulation. With this in mind, I outline a possible classification of the main paradigms employed in the literature and discuss potential brain processes that operate during some of the experimental manipulations described.