ArticlePsychophysiology2024
The effect of performance contingent reward prospects flexibly adapts to more versus less specific task goals.
Article in Psychophysiology, 2024. 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.
- Neurocognitive and Autonomic Signatures of Performance Under Motivational Stress: An Integrated Psychophysiological Analysis of Reward and Punishment in Shooting Performance.Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports · 2026Article
- The effect of performance contingent reward prospects flexibly adapts to more versus less specific task goals.Psychophysiology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In some situations, for example, when we expect to gain a reward in case of good performance, goal-driven top-down attention is particularly strong. Little is known about the task specificity of such increases of top-down attention due to environmental factors. To understand to what extent performance-contingent reward prospects can result in specific and unspecific changes in cognitive processing, we here investigate reward effects under different levels of task specification. Thirty-two participants performed a visual or an auditory discrimination task cued by two consecutive visual stimuli: First, a reward cue indicated if good performance was rewarded. Second, a task cue announced either which of the two tasks would follow (precise cue) or that both tasks would follow equally likely (imprecise cue). Reward and task cue preciseness both significantly improved performance. Moreover, the response time difference between precisely and imprecisely cued trials was significantly stronger in rewarded than in unrewarded trials. These effects were reflected in event-related potential (ERP) slow wave amplitudes: Reward and preciseness both significantly enhanced the contingent negative variation (CNV) prior to the task stimulus. In an early CNV time interval, both factors also showed an interaction. A negative slow wave prior to the task cue was also significantly enhanced for rewarded trials. This effect correlated with the reward difference in response times. These results indicate that reward prospects trigger task-specific changes in preparatory top-down attention which can flexibly adapt over time and across different task requirements. This highlights that a reward-induced increase of cognitive control can occur on different specificity levels.
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.