Reward grabs the eye: Oculomotor capture by rewarding stimuli
Open accessAbstract
It is well known that salient yet task irrelevant stimuli may capture our eyes independent of our goals and intentions. The present study shows that a task-irrelevant stimulus that is previously associated with high monetary reward captures the eyes much stronger than that very same stimulus when previously associated with low monetary reward. We conclude that reward changes the salience of a stimulus such that a stimulus that is associated with high reward becomes more pertinent and therefore captures the eyes above and beyond its physical salience. Because the stimulus capture the eyes and disrupts goal-directed behavior we argue that this effect is automatic not driven by strategic, top-down 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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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?
In order to learn a particular selection history bias, the stimuli involved must receive some attentionally prioritized processing either because they are task-relevant or stand out from the environment through their physical properties.
“In order to learn a particular selection history bias, the stimuli involved must receive some attentionally prioritized processing either because they are task-relevant (e.g., Anderson et al., 2011; Theeuwes & Belopolsky, 2012) or stand out from the environment through their physical properties (e.g., Hickey et al., 2010a; Le Pelley et al., 2016).”
From Selection history: How reward modulates selectivity of visual attention. (2018) · cites this paper as Theeuwes & Belopolsky, 2012
In §2.3 (Stimuli, design and procedure; page unavailable), participants searched for the rewarded stimuli as targets during training, so those stimuli were task-relevant. The study shows that this arrangement produced a learned reward bias, but it does not establish that task relevance or other attentionally prioritized processing is necessary to learn any selection-history bias. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredReward-based selection history created during a separate training session influences overt search, with high-reward objects invoking more oculomotor capture.
“Target objects associated with relatively high reward during a training session invoke more oculomotor capture compared to objects previously associated with low reward when presented as a task-irrelevant distractor in a subsequent test session.”
From Selection history: How reward modulates selectivity of visual attention. (2018) · cites this paper as Theeuwes & Belopolsky, 2012
Failing and colleagues observed oculomotor capture of stimuli that signal high reward relative to those that signaled low reward but no difference in saccadic latencies.
“Failing and colleagues observed oculomotor capture of stimuli that signal high reward relative to those that signaled low reward but no difference in saccadic latencies (Failing et al., 2015; Pearson et al., 2016; see also Theeuwes & Belopolsky, 2012).”
From Selection history: How reward modulates selectivity of visual attention. (2018) · cites this paper as Theeuwes & Belopolsky, 2012
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 35 · Cited by 237
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- In S. Monsell, & J. Driver (Eds.), Attention & performance (Vol. 18). Cambridge: MIT Press.
- Authors
- Theeuwes, J., & Belopolsky, A. V.
- Affiliations
- Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL)
- Corresponding author
- Theeuwes, Jan
- Venue
- Vision Research
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2012-12
- Volume
- 74
- Pages
- 80-85
- ISSN
- 0042-6989 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1986936455
- Cited by
- 237
- References
- 35
- Citations by year
- 2026: 10 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 29 · 2014: 24 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 21.07
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Vision Research (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- VU Research Portal (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- Digital Academic REpository of VU University Amsterdam (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) (submittedVersion)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (451-08-017)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Visual Attention and Saliency Detection
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
- Keywords
- oculomotor capture, reward, monetary rewards, stimulus salience, task-irrelevant stimuli, visual attention, goal-directed behavior, top-down control
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Attention, Drive, Eye Movements, Female, Goals, Humans, Male, Orientation, Pattern Recognition, Visual, 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
