ArticlePsychological research2026
Contrasting the classic effect of reward on attentional priority maps: behavioral evidence for an attentional gating of spatially-specific reward signals.
Article in Psychological research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The control of selective visuo-spatial attention is known to rely on multiple signals, including reward. While most attention control signals are well acknowledged to interact with each other, the case of reward has led to mixed findings supporting either its interaction with, or its independence from other signals. We addressed this issue using a 4-item search task that entailed spatially biased reward contingencies, with one of the four locations associated with high rewards for correct target discriminations. In different conditions, the target, a distractor or neither of them could be physically salient. Targets at the high-reward location did not enhance search performance. In contrast, and contrary to our initial expectations, salient distractors at the high-reward location interfered less with the discrimination of the task-relevant targets, reflecting gating mechanisms at the high-reward location. Exploratory analyses showed that, across participants, the degree of target and salient distractor gating at the high-reward location correlated with each other. In contrast to previous findings supporting attention capture by reward signals, we evidenced gating by reward.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42455359What 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.