ArticleCognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience2021
Reward impacts visual statistical learning.
Article in Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Neural correlates of altered reward-driven attention in chronic pain and opioid use.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Reward and loss incentives improve spatial working memory by shaping trial-by-trial posterior frontoparietal signals.NeuroImage · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Humans automatically detect and remember regularities in the visual environment-a type of learning termed visual statistical learning (VSL). Many aspects of learning from reward resemble VSL in certain respects, yet whether and how reward learning impacts VSL is largely unexamined. In two studies, we found that reward contingencies affect VSL, with high-value associated with stronger behavioral and neural signatures of such learning than low-value images. In Experiment 1, participants learned values (high or low) of images through a trial-and-error risky choice task. Unbeknownst to them, images were paired as four types-High-High, High-Low, Low-High, and Low-Low. In subsequent recognition and reward memory tests, participants chose the more familiar of two pairs (a target and a foil) and recalled the value of images. We found better recognition when the first images of pairs have high-values, with High-High pairs showing the highest recognition rate. In Experiment 2, we provided evidence that both value and statistical contingencies affected brain responses. When we compared responses between the high-value first image and the low-value first image, greater activation in regions that included inferior frontal gyrus, anterior cingulate gyrus, hippocampus, among other regions, were found. These findings were driven by the interaction between statistically structured information and reward-the same value contrast yielded no regions for second-image contrasts and for singletons. Our results suggest that when reward information is embedded in stimulus-stimulus associations, it may alter the learning process; specifically, the higher-value first image potentially enables better memory for statistically learned pairs and reward information.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34089142What 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.