Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36831701›Full record

ArticleBrain sciences2023

On the Relationship between Value- and Threat-Driven Attentional Capture and Approach-Avoidance Biases.

Haena Kim, Brian A Anderson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Brain sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Haena KimDepartment of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Texas A&M University, 4235 TAMU, College Station, TX 77843-4235, USA.
Brian A AndersonDepartment of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Texas A&M University, 4235 TAMU, College Station, TX 77843-4235, USA.

Funding

The Control of Attention and Learning from Physical EffortR01DA046410 · NIDA · TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY · PI ANDERSON, BRIAN AUGUST · 2019 to 2023
$1.9M
NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA046410NIDA NIH HHS R01-DA046410
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Reward learning and aversive conditioning have consequences for attentional selection, such that stimuli that come to signal reward and threat bias attention regardless of their valence. Appetitive and aversive stimuli have distinctive influences on response selection, such that they activate an approach and an avoidance response, respectively. However, whether the involuntary influence of reward- and threat-history-laden stimuli extends to the manner in which a response is directed remains unclear. Using a feedback-joystick task and a manikin task, which are common paradigms for examining valence-action bias, we demonstrate that reward- and threat-signalling stimuli do not modulate response selection. Stimuli that came to signal reward and threat via training biased attention and invigorated action in general, but they did not facilitate an approach and avoidance response, respectively. We conclude that attention can be biased towards a stimulus as a function of its prior association with reward or aversive outcomes without necessarily influencing approach vs. avoidance tendencies, such that the mechanisms underlying the involuntary control of attention and behaviour evoked by valent stimuli can be decoupled.

Indexed as

actionapproachaversive conditioningavoidancereward learningselection historyselective attention

Identifiers

PMID36831701
PMCPMC9954098

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.