Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30020840›Full record

ArticleJournal of neurophysiology2018

To look or not to look? Reward, selection history, and oculomotor guidance.

Daniel Preciado, Jan Theeuwes

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

2 authors.

Daniel PreciadoDepartment of Experimental and Applied Psychology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam , The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-0189-1012
Jan TheeuwesDepartment of Experimental and Applied Psychology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam , The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

RewardSaccadesAdultColor PerceptionFemaleHumansMalePsychomotor PerformanceReaction Timeantisaccadeattentional biaseye-trackinggoal-drivenreward-driven

Identifiers

PMID30020840
PMCPMC6230805

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.