Linking dopaminergic reward signals to the development of attentional bias: A positron emission tomographic study

Abstract

The attention system is shaped by reward history, such that learned reward cues involuntarily draw attention. Recent research has begun to uncover the neural mechanisms by which learned reward cues compete for attention, implicating dopamine (DA) signaling within the dorsal striatum. How these elevated priority signals develop in the brain during the course of learning is less well understood, as is the relationship between value-based attention and the experience of reward during learning. We hypothesized that the magnitude of the striatal DA response to reward during learning contributes to the development of a learned attentional bias towards the cue that predicted it, and examined this hypothesis using positron emission tomography with [11C]raclopride. We measured changes in dopamine release for rewarded versus unrewarded visual search for color-defined targets as indicated by the density and distribution of the available D2/D3 receptors. We then tested for correlations of individual differences in this measure of reward-related DA release to individual differences in the degree to which previously reward-associated but currently task-irrelevant stimuli impair performance in an attention task (i.e., value-driven attentional bias), revealing a significant relationship in the right anterior caudate. The degree to which reward-related DA release was right hemisphere lateralized was also predictive of later attentional bias. Our findings provide support for the hypothesis that value-driven attentional bias can be predicted from reward-related DA release during learning.

Visual stimuli induce serotonin release in occipital cortex: A simultaneous positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging study

“…Two recent PET studies, where dopamine release was measured while participants performed visual search tasks, suggest a relationship between dopamine signaling within the striatum and the control of visual attention (B. A. Anderson et al, 2016(B. A. Anderson et al, , 2017.…”

Selection history: How reward modulates selectivity of visual attention

“…For instance, the behavioral impact of intertrial reward priming has been shown to positively correlate with a midline anterior ERP component, called medial frontal negativity, which has been suggested to reflect the assessment of motivational impact (Gehring & Willoughby, 2002 ; Hickey et al, 2010a ). The extent to which Anderson and colleagues (Anderson, Kuwabara, et al, 2017 ) observed VDAC during the test session was positively correlated with the dopamine release in the right anterior caudate during the training. In other words, more dopamine release throughout the training predicted more distraction during the test.…”

Test–retest reliability of value-driven attentional capture

“…Associative reward learning can change the attentional priority of visual stimuli, such that learned predictors of reward acquire the ability to automatically capture attention. This phenomenon, referred to as value-driven attentional capture, is supported by covert attention measures (e.g., Anderson, Laurent, & Yantis, 2011a, 2011bFailing & Theeuwes, 2014), eyetracking (e.g., Anderson & Yantis, 2012;Le Pelley, Pearson, Griffiths, & Beesley, 2015;Theeuwes & Belopolsky, 2012), and stimulus-evoked brain activity using a variety of techniques, including functional magnetic resonance imaging (Anderson, 2017;Anderson, Laurent, & Yantis, 2014;Hickey & Peelen, 2015;Krebs, Boehler, Egner, & Woldorff, 2011), electroencephalography (MacLean & Giesbrecht, 2015;Qi, Zeng, Ding, & Li, 2013), positron emission tomography (Anderson, Kuwabara, et al, 2016;Anderson, Kuwabara, et al, 2017), and magnetoencephalography (Donohue et al, 2016;Hopf et al, 2015). Importantly, previously reward-associated cues have been shown to capture attention even when they are currently task-irrelevant and physically nonsalient, suggesting that reward history plays a direct role in the control of attention (see Anderson, 2013Anderson, , 2016a.…”