ArticleCognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience2026
Neurocognitive effects of interest on reward valuation and effort investment in boring contexts.
Article in Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience, 2026. 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.
- Electrophysiological evidence for the emotional benefits of auditory nature therapy among psychiatric healthcare workers.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Monotonous tasks are common in academic and professional settings, yet sustaining motivation and effort in such contexts remains a persistent challenge. This research examined whether inserting a brief episode of interest into an otherwise boring, incentivized task could replenish cognitive and motivational resources and sustain effort. Two competing accounts were tested. The contrast-effect hypothesis predicted that once interest was withdrawn, the remaining rewards would lose their impact, and effort would diminish. In contrast, the transfer-effect hypothesis proposed that prior interest would leave a motivational trace that preserves the effectiveness of the rewards. Study 1 (behavioral study) employed a typing task, while Study 2 (fMRI study) used a social preference guessing task, both with performance-contingent monetary incentives. In both studies, participants in the experimental group completed a boring-interesting-boring sequence, whereas those in the control group experienced a boring-neutral-boring sequence. Across two studies, results consistently supported the transfer-effect hypothesis, demonstrating that prior interest enhanced subsequent engagement, effort, and reward sensitivity, even when monetary incentives were reduced. Neuroimaging results further revealed activity in regions involved in reward processing (e.g., anterior cingulate cortex, anterior insula) and attentional control (e.g., lateral occipital cortex, inferior parietal lobule) even after interest was removed, suggesting a lingering motivational effect of interest. These findings integrate reinforcement learning and interest theories and suggest a practical strategy: sandwiching brief, interest-enhancing episodes between boring rewarded tasks can serve as a motivational reset, enabling effort and persistence in low-stimulation environments.
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.