ArticlePsychological research2025
An examination of how reward associations facilitate and impair Stroop performance.
Article in Psychological research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Motivation, attention, and uncertainty: insights from animal and human research and implications for addiction.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rewarded stimuli are prioritized by the attentional system. Behavioral performance is improved when the task-relevant dimension is tied to a potential reward but is impaired when the irrelevant dimension is reward related. Within the rewarded Stroop task, the facilitation (reward responsiveness) and impairment (modulation of interference of reward association; MIRA) from reward-associated stimuli are thought to be due to different cognitive processes. In four experiments, we explored whether reward responsiveness and MIRA were influenced by reward magnitude and persisted following reward discontinuation. We manipulated how informed participants were of the stimulus-reward contingency based on whether they received stimulus-reward color instructions and whether or not the stimulus-reward contingency was certain (i.e., one color was always tied to one reward outcome). Results suggest that greater reward magnitude increased reward responsiveness, especially when participants were informed about the stimulus-reward contingency. However, greater impairment (MIRA) by a large versus small reward related color word was only observed when participants had little knowledge of the reward contingency (i.e., no instructions and a more uncertain mapping of stimuli to rewards) or during the extinction phase when reward associated colors were less relevant. These findings highlight the distinction between reward responsiveness to maximize gains and the unintentional prioritization of related but irrelevant information and suggest that reward associations that elicit greater reward responsiveness do not necessarily lead to greater impairment of conflict processing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40439745What 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.