ArticleBrain sciences2024
Reward History and Statistical Learning Independently Impact Attention Search: An ERP Study.
Article in Brain sciences, 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.
- Retrospective attention suppresses reward-associated interference in visual working memory.Psychological research · 2026Article
- Differential Modulation of Attention by Aversive Associative and Statistical Learning in Distinct Visual Search Modes.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Selection history is widely accepted as a vital source in attention control. Reward history indicates that a learned association captures attention even when the reward is no longer presented, while statistical learning indicates that a learned probability exerts its influence on attentional control (facilitation or inhibition). Existing research has shown that the effects of the reward history and statistical learning are additive, suggesting that these two components influence attention priority through different pathways. In the current study, leveraging the temporal resolution advantages of EEG, we explored whether these two components represent independent sources of attentional bias. The results revealed faster responses to the target at the high-probability location compared to low-probability locations. Both the target and distractor at high-probability locations elicited larger early Pd (50-150 ms) and Pd (150-250 ms) components. The reward distractor slowed the target search and elicited a larger N2pc (180-350 ms). Further, no interaction between statistical learning and the reward history was observed in RTs or N2pc. The different types of temporal progression in attention control indicate that statistical learning and the reward history independently modulate the attention priority map.
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.