ArticleJournal of neurophysiology2018
To look or not to look? Reward, selection history, and oculomotor guidance.
Article in Journal of neurophysiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reward-driven attention alters perceived salience.Journal of vision · 2021Article
- Beyond Looking for the Rewarded Target: The Effects of Reward on Attention in Search Tasks.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
- A Multimodal Analysis Combining Behavioral Experiments and Survey-Based Methods to Assess the Cognitive Effect of Video Game Playing: Good or Evil?Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The current eye-tracking study examined the influence of reward on oculomotor performance, and the extent to which learned stimulus-reward associations interacted with voluntary oculomotor control with a modified paradigm based on the classical antisaccade task. Participants were shown two equally salient stimuli simultaneously: a gray and a colored circle, and they were instructed to make a fast saccade to one of them. During the first phase of the experiment, participants made a fast saccade toward the colored stimulus, and their performance determined a (cash) bonus. During the second, participants made a saccade toward the gray stimulus, with no rewards available. On each trial, one of three colors was presented, each associated with high, low or no reward during the first phase. Results from the first phase showed improved accuracy and shorter saccade latencies on high-reward trials, while those from the second replicated well-known effects typical of the antisaccade task, namely, decreased accuracy and increased latency during phase II, even despite the absence of abrupt asymmetric onsets. Crucially, performance differences between phases revealed longer latencies and less accurate saccades during the second phase for high-reward trials, compared with the low- and no-reward trials. Further analyses indicated that oculomotor capture by reward signals is mainly found for saccades with short latencies, while this automatic capture can be overridden through voluntary control with longer ones. These results highlight the natural flexibility and adaptability of the attentional system, and the role of reward in modulating this plasticity. NEW & NOTEWORTHY Typically, in the antisaccade task, participants need to suppress an automatic orienting reflex toward a suddenly appearing peripheral stimulus. Here, we introduce an alternative antisaccade task without such abrupt onsets. We replicate well-known antisaccade effects (more errors and longer latencies), demonstrating the role of reward in developing selective oculomotor biases. Results highlight how reward and selection history facilitate developing automatic biases from goal-driven behavior, and they suggest that this process responds to individual differences in impulsivity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.