Cited by 162Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorBehavioral Health and Interventions

Interactions between cognition and motivation during response inhibition

Open access
Padmala, Srikanth, Pessoa, Luiz·2010·Neuropsychologia

Abstract

A growing number of studies have investigated how motivation interacts with particular cognitive functions, including attention, working memory, and other executive functions. In these studies, the emphasis has been on understanding how motivation impacts brain regions that contribute to improving behavioral performance. Less is understood about how positive incentives may actually impair behavioral performance. Here, we were interested in investigating a situation in which reward would be potentially deleterious to behavioral performance. Specifically, we hypothesized that rewarding participants for correct going would impair stopping performance. Critically, we hypothesized that the effects on inhibition would be specific, namely, not simply attributable to a speeding-up of reaction time during go trials. To investigate the interaction between inhibition and motivation, participants performed a stop-signal task during two conditions, namely, during a neutral, control condition and during a rewarded condition during which they were rewarded for correct go performance. Behaviorally, participants exhibited longer stop-signal reaction times during the reward relative to the control condition, indicating that it was harder to inhibit their responses during the former condition. Neuroimaging findings revealed that a host of brain regions were involved in stop-signal inhibition, as indexed via the contrast of successful and unsuccessful stop trials. Critically, a subset of these regions, which included the right inferior frontal gyrus, the left precentral gyrus, and bilateral putamen, exhibited significant inhibition by condition interactions, demonstrating that cognitive and motivational signals interact in the brain during inhibitory control.

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.neuropsychologia.2009.10.017

Cites

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?

  • Padmala and Pessoa (2010) demonstrated in a Stroop task that when reward was at stake, target selection was facilitated on distractor-congruent trials and interference was smaller on distractor-incongruent trials.

    “Padmala and Pessoa (2010) demonstrated in a Stroop task that, when reward was at stake, target selection was facilitated on distractor-congruent trials and interference in target selection was smaller on distractor-incongruent trials.”

    From Selection history: How reward modulates selectivity of visual attention. (2018) · cites this paper as Padmala & Pessoa, 2010

    The Methods (page unavailable) describe a stop-signal task, not a Stroop task with congruent and incongruent distractors. The Behavioral results (page unavailable) report that reward increased stop-signal reaction time, making responses harder to inhibit; they do not report facilitated target selection or reduced Stroop interference. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 69 · Cited by 162

Authors
Padmala, S., & Pessoa, L.
Affiliations
Indiana University Bloomington (US)
Corresponding author
Pessoa, Luiz
Venue
Neuropsychologia
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-01
Volume
48
Issue
2
Pages
558-565
ISSN
0028-3932 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2141631579
Cited by
162
References
69
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 12
FWCI
4.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Neuropsychologia (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01 MH071589)
  • Indiana METACyt Initiative of Indiana University
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
Keywords
response inhibition, motivation, reward, stop-signal task, inhibitory control, stop-signal reaction time, inferior frontal gyrus, precentral gyrus, putamen
MeSH terms
Acoustic Stimulation, Adult, Brain, Choice Behavior, Cognition, Female, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Inhibition, Psychological, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Motivation, Neuropsychological Tests, Oxygen, Reaction Time, Reward, 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