Cited by 404Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesNeural dynamics and brain functionNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior

Neuronal representations of cognitive state: reward or attention?

Maunsell, John H.R.·2004·Trends in Cognitive Sciences

Abstract

The effects of spatial or featural attention on the activity of neurons have been studied in many experiments that have used a variety of neurophysiological approaches. Other experiments have examined how expectations about reward are represented in neuronal activity in various brain regions. Although attention and reward are distinct concepts, I argue here that many neurophysiological experiments on attention and reward do not permit a clean dissociation between the two. This problem arises in part because reward contingencies are the only parameter manipulated in any of these experiments. I describe how attention and reward expectations have been confounded, giving rise to uncertainty about how signals related to attention and reward are distributed in the brain.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.tics.2004.04.003

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Reward automatically changes the visual salience of reward-associated perceptual features, and this is theoretically distinct from the known role of reward in the strategic establishment of attentional set.

    “The direct nature of this influence deserves emphasis; the idea is that reward automatically changes the visual salience of reward-associated perceptual features, and this is theoretically distinct from the known role of reward in the strategic establishmentofattentional set (Maunsell, 2004).”

    From Reward Changes Salience in Human Vision via the Anterior Cingulate (2010) · cites this paper as Maunsell, 2004

  • Irrespective of whether reward was signaled prior to a block of trials, prior to an individual trial, or contingent on the target, the beneficial influence of reward in these studies can be readily explained in terms of ongoing top-down attentional control processes.

    “Irrespective of whether reward was signaled prior to a block of trials, prior to an individual trial, or contingent on the target, the beneficial influence of reward in all these studies can be readily explained in terms of ongoing top-down attentional control processes (Maunsell, 2004; Stănişor, van der Togt, Pennartz, & Roelfsema, 2013).”

    From Selection history: How reward modulates selectivity of visual attention. (2018) · cites this paper as Maunsell, 2004

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Maunsell, J. H. R.
Affiliations
Howard Hughes Medical Institute (US)
Corresponding author
Maunsell, John H.R.
Venue
Trends in Cognitive Sciences
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2004-06
Volume
8
Issue
6
Pages
261-265
ISSN
1364-6613 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2126116397
Cited by
404
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 29 · 2014: 32 · 2013: 21 · 2012: 27
FWCI
0.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Trends in Cognitive Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Eye Institute (R01EY005911)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
Keywords
attention, reward anticipation, cognitive states, neural representations, spatial attention, reward contingency, confounding variables
MeSH terms
Animals, Attention, Brain, Cognition, Electrophysiology, Humans, Neurons, Reward

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