Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24820263›Full record

Trial reportCognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience2014

Utilization of reward-prospect enhances preparatory attention and reduces stimulus conflict.

Berry van den Berg, Ruth M Krebs, Monicque M Lorist, Marty G Woldorff

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

47 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. The puzzle of profitless pre-cues.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. A meta-analytic investigation of the role of reward on inhibitory control.Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006) · 2021
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Neurophysiology of Effortful Listening: Decoupling Motivational Modulation from Task Demands.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Berry van den BergCenter for Cognitive Neuroscience, Duke University, Box 90999, Durham, NC, 27708-0999, USA, berryv.dberg@gmail.com.
Ruth M Krebs
Monicque M Lorist
Marty G Woldorff

Funding

Studies of Attention Using Combined ERPs and fMRIR01MH060415 · NIMH · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI WOLDORFF, MARTY G. · 2001 to 2013
$3.6M
Attentional Mechanisms in Multisensory EnvironmentsR01NS051048 · NINDS · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI WOLDORFF, MARTY G. · 2006 to 2016
$3.5M
NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH060415NIMH NIH HHS R01-MH060415NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS051048NINDS NIH HHS R01-NS051048
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The prospect of gaining money is an incentive widely at play in the real world. Such monetary motivation might have particularly strong influence when the cognitive system is challenged, such as when needing to process conflicting stimulus inputs. Here, we employed manipulations of reward-prospect and attentional-preparation levels in a cued-Stroop stimulus conflict task, along with the high temporal resolution of electrical brain recordings, to provide insight into the mechanisms by which reward-prospect and attention interact and modulate cognitive task performance. In this task, the cue indicated whether or not the participant needed to prepare for an upcoming Stroop stimulus and, if so, whether there was the potential for monetary reward (dependent on performance on that trial). Both cued attention and cued reward-prospect enhanced preparatory neural activity, as reflected by increases in the hallmark attention-related negative-polarity ERP slow wave (contingent negative variation [CNV]) and reductions in oscillatory Alpha activity, which was followed by enhanced processing of the subsequent Stroop stimulus. In addition, similar modulations of preparatory neural activity (larger CNVs and reduced Alpha) predicted shorter versus longer response times (RTs) to the subsequent target stimulus, consistent with such modulations reflecting trial-to-trial variations in attention. Particularly striking were the individual differences in the utilization of reward-prospect information. In particular, the size of the reward effects on the preparatory neural activity correlated across participants with the degree to which reward-prospect both facilitated overall task performance (shorter RTs) and reduced conflict-related behavioral interference. Thus, the prospect of reward appears to recruit attentional preparation circuits to enhance processing of task-relevant target information.

Indexed as

Conflict, PsychologicalRewardAdolescentAdultAttentionBrain MappingContingent Negative VariationCuesElectroencephalographyEvoked Potentials, VisualFemaleHumansMaleNeuropsychological TestsPhotic StimulationStatistics as Topic

Identifiers

PMID24820263
PMCPMC4412026

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.