Reward Priority of Visual Target Singletons Modulates Event-Related Potential Signatures of Attentional Selection

Abstract

We examined visual search for color singleton targets, whose shape was discriminated. Critically, we varied the reward priority of singleton colors (correct fast performance for red singletons was worth more "bonus points" than for green singletons, or vice-versa), while testing whether ERP signatures of visual selection can be affected by distinct reward priorities for different target types, even when every target has to be selected for report. The N2pc component was earlier and larger for high-versus low-reward targets. This reward influence on the N2pc correlated with the subject-by-subject impact of reward level on efficiency of behavioral performance. Later postselection processing was also affected by target reward-level. These results demonstrate that visual selection of task-relevant item is rapidly modulated by reward-related priorities, even when both types of target have to be selected for response.

“Wanted!” The effects of reward on face recognition: electrophysiological correlates

“…Attentional inhibition was found for task-irrelevant distractors (Raymond, Fenske, & Tavassoli, 2003), and it has been proposed that distractor suppression may be sensitive to reward contingencies (Della Libera & Chelazzi 2009). These results suggest that motivation can affect early visual processing enhancing selective attentional processing, showing that the attentional selection of target stimuli can be modulated by their reward value (Kiss et al, 2009).…”

“…It has been proposed that an enhanced neural interaction between reward-related regions and areas involved in perceptual and cognitive processing improves behavioral performance to maximize the reward outcome (Pessoa, 2009). For example, some studies have provided evidence that motivation and attention jointly influence visual orienting by modulating early sensory processes (Engelmann & Pessoa, 2007;Kiss, Driver, & Eimer, 2009;Rutherford, O'Brien & Raymond 2010). In this regard, Rutherford and coworkers suggested that prior experience of reward might influence visual selection.…”

How do magnitude and frequency of monetary reward guide visual search?

“…One possibility is that our visual search task is broadly insensitive not just to spatial reward magnitude learning but to many forms of magnitude learning. As mentioned in the introduction, several researchers have reported robust prioritization of features that are associated with greater monetary reward (e.g., Anderson, et al, 2011;Kiss et al, 2009;Navalpakkam et al, 2010). In Experiment 2, we test whether the visual search task used in Experiment 1 produces learning of feature magnitude.…”

“…Just one study has reported that individuals learn to bias spatial attention to locations containing more valuable targets . Note that, overall, the number of studies of attention and reward have surged in recent years, most of which have shown robust prioritization of rewarded nonspatial features (e.g., Anderson, Laurent, & Yantis, 2011;Della Libera & Chelazzi, 2006;Hickey, Chelazzi, & Theeuwes, 2010;Kiss, Driver, & Eimer, 2009;Navalpakkam, Koch, Rangel, & Perona, 2010). Given the traditionally strong focus of attention research on spatial attention (Bisley & Goldberg, 2010;Fecteau & Munoz, 2006), one might expect more published studies demonstrating learning of spatial reward magnitude.…”

Automaticity and cognitive control in the learned predictiveness effect.

“…Kiss, Driver, and Eimer (2009) showed that the selection of targets associated with high reward is facilitated relative to low reward targets during visual search. This occurs when both high and low reward targets are physically salient, and therefore assumed to be equally prioritised via bottom-up processes (e.g., Theeuwes, 1991).…”