ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2022
The influence of reward history on goal-directed visual search.
Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Attention Habit II: How selection history shapes the strategic control of attention.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2025Review
- Statistical learning re-shapes the center-surround inhibition of the visuo-spatial attentional focus.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Trichotomy revisited: A monolithic theory of attentional control.Vision research · 2024Article
- Adapting attentional control settings in a shape-changing environment.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2024Article
- Selection history contributes to suboptimal attention strategies.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2023Article
- Graded prioritisation of targets in search: reward diminishes the low prevalence effect.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2023Article
- This is a test: Oculomotor capture when the experiment keeps score.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The attentional priority of a stimulus is influenced by both its relationship to task goals and reward history. While experiments probing goal-directed visual search typically dictate which stimuli should receive attentional priority by virtue of highly constrained task demands, individuals in real-world scenarios choose what to search for. In such complex and dynamic environments, it is unclear how reward history might influence the strategic control of attention. In the present study, participants completed a modified version of the Adaptive Choice Visual Search (ACVS) task integrated with the value-driven attentional capture design. In a training phase, participants learned to associate one of two possible target colors with monetary reward. In a subsequent test phase, they completed the ACVS task in which a target in both a previously rewarded and unrewarded color was present on each trial and participants could choose how to search. Our results reveal that participants were biased to voluntarily search through the previously reward-associated color regardless of whether the distribution of stimuli made it optimal to do so, which came at a cost in performance when searching through the previously rewarded color was a suboptimal strategy. In the absence of prior reward training, in contrast, search strategy was inconsistent with respect to color. Our findings provide evidence that reward history biases voluntary search processes.
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.