Cited by 55Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorVisual Attention and Saliency Detection

Linking dopaminergic reward signals to the development of attentional bias: A positron emission tomographic study

Open access
Anderson, Brian A., Kuwabara, Hiroto, Wong, Dean F., Roberts, Joshua, Rahmim, Arman, Brašić, James R., Courtney, Susan M.·2017·NeuroImage

Abstract

The attention system is shaped by reward history, such that learned reward cues involuntarily draw attention. Recent research has begun to uncover the neural mechanisms by which learned reward cues compete for attention, implicating dopamine (DA) signaling within the dorsal striatum. How these elevated priority signals develop in the brain during the course of learning is less well understood, as is the relationship between value-based attention and the experience of reward during learning. We hypothesized that the magnitude of the striatal DA response to reward during learning contributes to the development of a learned attentional bias towards the cue that predicted it, and examined this hypothesis using positron emission tomography with [11 C]raclopride. We measured changes in dopamine release for rewarded versus unrewarded visual search for color-defined targets as indicated by the density and distribution of the available D 2/D 3 receptors. We then tested for correlations of individual differences in this measure of reward-related DA release to individual differences in the degree to which previously reward-associated but currently task-irrelevant stimuli impair performance in an attention task (i.e., value-driven attentional bias), revealing a significant relationship in the right anterior caudate. The degree to which reward-related DA release was right hemisphere lateralized was also predictive of later attentional bias. Our findings provide support for the hypothesis that value-driven attentional bias can be predicted from reward-related DA release during learning.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.05.062

Cites

55 of 55 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The extent of value-modulated attentional capture during a test session positively correlated with dopamine release in the right anterior caudate during training, such that more dopamine release predicted more distraction during the test.

    “The extent to which Anderson and colleagues (Anderson, Kuwabara, et al., 2017) observed VDAC during the test session was positively correlated with the dopamine release in the right anterior caudate during the training.”

    From Selection history: How reward modulates selectivity of visual attention. (2018) · cites this paper as Anderson, Kuwabara, et al., 2017

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 57 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Ashburner J Friston KJ 2003 Rigid body registration Frackowiak RSJ Friston KJ Frith C Dolan R Price CJ Zeki S Ashburner J Penny WD Human Brain Function Academic Press 2nd
  2. First MB Spitzer RL Gibbon M Williams JBW 1997 Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders—Clinician Version (SCID-CV) Washington, DC American Psychiatric Press

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Anderson, B. A., Kuwabara, H., Wong, D. F., Roberts, J., Rahmim, A., Brašić, J. R., & Courtney, S. M.
Affiliations
  • Texas A&M University (US)
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • Kennedy Krieger Institute (US)
Corresponding author
Anderson, Brian A.
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-08
Volume
157
Pages
27-33
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2617471883
Cited by
55
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 2
FWCI
3.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • NeuroImage (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
National Institutes of Health (R01-DA013165, S10-RR017219, S10-RR023623)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Visual Attention and Saliency Detection
Keywords
attentional bias, dopamine release, reward learning, dorsal striatum, caudate nucleus, D2/D3 receptors, [11C]raclopride, visual search, individual differences, hemispheric lateralization, reward cues
MeSH terms
Attentional Bias, Adult, Caudate Nucleus, Dopamine, Female, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Psychomotor Performance, Reward, Radiopharmaceuticals, Raclopride, Positron-Emission Tomography, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review