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


Journal

Psychological research
ISSN: 1430-2772
Titre abrégé: Psychol Res
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 0435062

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Mar 2019
Historique:
received: 28 06 2017
accepted: 06 12 2017
pubmed: 27 1 2018
medline: 21 5 2019
entrez: 27 1 2018
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

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.

Identifiants

pubmed: 29372304
doi: 10.1007/s00426-017-0960-9
pii: 10.1007/s00426-017-0960-9
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

332-346

Références

Annu Rev Psychol. 2001;52:111-39
pubmed: 11148301
J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 2002 Jan;28(1):3-26
pubmed: 11868231
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2003 Jan;29(1):97-106
pubmed: 12549586
Science. 2003 Mar 21;299(5614):1898-902
pubmed: 12649484
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 Dec 9;100(25):15280-3
pubmed: 14657356
Nat Rev Neurosci. 2004 Mar;5(3):218-28
pubmed: 14976521
Q J Exp Psychol B. 2004 Jul;57(3):193-243
pubmed: 15204108
Neuron. 2006 Aug 3;51(3):381-90
pubmed: 16880132
J Neurosci. 2008 Jan 9;28(2):360-8
pubmed: 18184778
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2008 Oct 12;363(1507):3137-46
pubmed: 18640920
Neuron. 2008 Aug 28;59(4):561-7
pubmed: 18760693
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2008 Nov;61(11):1658-68
pubmed: 18942033
Annu Rev Psychol. 2010;61:273-301
pubmed: 19575617
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011 Jun 21;108(25):10367-71
pubmed: 21646524
Proc Biol Sci. 2011 Sep 7;278(1718):2553-61
pubmed: 21653585
Curr Biol. 2012 Apr 10;22(7):R219-20
pubmed: 22497933
Trends Cogn Sci. 2012 Aug;16(8):437-43
pubmed: 22795563
Atten Percept Psychophys. 2012 Nov;74(8):1644-53
pubmed: 22810561
Vision Res. 2012 Dec 1;74:80-5
pubmed: 22902641
Vision Res. 2013 Jun 7;85:58-72
pubmed: 23262054
Vis cogn. 2012 Jan 1;20(6):null
pubmed: 24294102
Cognition. 2014 Mar;130(3):348-59
pubmed: 24389311
Behav Brain Res. 2014 Jun 1;266:119-30
pubmed: 24631397
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2014 Aug;40(4):1654-64
pubmed: 24955700
Front Integr Neurosci. 2014 Jun 20;8:48
pubmed: 24994970
PLoS One. 2014 Jul 31;9(7):e103372
pubmed: 25080218
J Vis. 2014 Oct 03;14(12):null
pubmed: 25280985
J Exp Psychol Gen. 2015 Feb;144(1):158-171
pubmed: 25420117
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2015;68(11):2175-99
pubmed: 25832459
Atten Percept Psychophys. 2015 Aug;77(6):1896-907
pubmed: 25893470
Behav Neurosci. 2015 Aug;129(4):502-11
pubmed: 26076340
Sci Rep. 2015 Aug 10;5:12920
pubmed: 26257144
J Neurophysiol. 2015 Oct;114(4):2316-27
pubmed: 26289464
Atten Percept Psychophys. 2016 Feb;78(2):403-14
pubmed: 26676872
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2017 Aug;70(8):1485-1503
pubmed: 27174735
Atten Percept Psychophys. 2016 Oct;78(7):2199-212
pubmed: 27245703
Psychol Bull. 2016 Oct;142(10):1111-1140
pubmed: 27504933
Atten Percept Psychophys. 2017 Feb;79(2):415-428
pubmed: 27905069
Atten Percept Psychophys. 2017 May;79(4):1001-1011
pubmed: 28176215
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2019 Feb;72(2):168-181
pubmed: 28375688
Behav Neurosci. 2017 Jun;131(3):226-34
pubmed: 28471221
Atten Percept Psychophys. 2017 Nov;79(8):2275-2298
pubmed: 28733838
Front Behav Neurosci. 2017 Jul 11;11:128
pubmed: 28744206
Psychol Rev. 1980 Nov;87(6):532-52
pubmed: 7443916
Spat Vis. 1997;10(4):437-42
pubmed: 9176953

Auteurs

Matteo De Tommaso (M)

Center for Mind/Brain Sciences, University of Trento, Corso Bettini, 31, 38068, Rovereto, Italy. matteo.detommaso@unitn.it.

Tommaso Mastropasqua (T)

Center for Mind/Brain Sciences, University of Trento, Corso Bettini, 31, 38068, Rovereto, Italy.

Massimo Turatto (M)

Center for Mind/Brain Sciences, University of Trento, Corso Bettini, 31, 38068, Rovereto, Italy.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH