Cited by 1,098Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesVisual Attention and Saliency DetectionNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior

Value-driven attentional capture

Open access
Anderson, Brian A., Laurent, Patryk A., Yantis, Steven·2011·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

Attention selects which aspects of sensory input are brought to awareness. To promote survival and well-being, attention prioritizes stimuli both voluntarily, according to context-specific goals (e.g., searching for car keys), and involuntarily, through attentional capture driven by physical salience (e.g., looking toward a sudden noise). Valuable stimuli strongly modulate voluntary attention allocation, but there is little evidence that high-value but contextually irrelevant stimuli capture attention as a consequence of reward learning. Here we show that visual search for a salient target is slowed by the presence of an inconspicuous, task-irrelevant item that was previously associated with monetary reward during a brief training session. Thus, arbitrary and otherwise neutral stimuli imbued with value via associative learning capture attention powerfully and persistently during extinction, independently of goals and salience. Vulnerability to such value-driven attentional capture covaries across individuals with working memory capacity and trait impulsivity. This unique form of attentional capture may provide a useful model for investigating failures of cognitive control in clinical syndromes in which value assigned to stimuli conflicts with behavioral goals (e.g., addiction, obesity).

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 · 10.1073/pnas.1104047108

Cites

45 of 45 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?

  • 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 Anderson et al., 2011

    The Results and Methods describe reward learning for red or green stimuli that were task-relevant search targets during training; those colors later captured attention when they became irrelevant distractors. This supports Anderson et al. as an example of a bias learned from task-relevant stimuli, but the study does not establish that attentional prioritization is necessary to learn every selection-history bias. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Anderson et al. (2011) observed an increase in search time when a nontarget had a color previously associated with high reward, even though participants were instructed to ignore color and could no longer receive reward.

    “During the test session, Anderson et al. observed an increase in the time to find the target when a nontarget had a color that was previously associated with a high reward relative to when none of the previously reward-associated colors was present.”

    From Selection history: How reward modulates selectivity of visual attention. (2018) · cites this paper as Anderson, Laurent, & Yantis, 2011

  • Even a strong top-down set to select only the task-relevant stimulus cannot overcome the capturing effects of a salient stimulus, a primed stimulus, or a stimulus associated with reward.

    “several studies have already shown that even a strong top-down set to select only the task-relevant stimulus cannot overcome the capturing effects of a salient stimulus (Theeuwes, 1991b, 1992, 1994), a stimulus that is primed (Theeuwes, Reimann, & Mortier, 2006; Theeuwes & van der Burg, 2011), or a stimulus associated with reward (Anderson et al., 2011).”

    From Selection history: How reward modulates selectivity of visual attention. (2018) · cites this paper as Anderson et al., 2011

  • Individual working memory capacity is negatively correlated with capture by previously reward-associated stimuli.

    “individual working memory capacity has been shown to be negatively correlated with capture by previously reward-associated stimuli (Anderson et al., 2011; Anderson et al., 2013).”

    From Selection history: How reward modulates selectivity of visual attention. (2018) · cites this paper as Anderson et al., 2011

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Anderson, B. A., Laurent, P. A., & Yantis, S.
Affiliations
Johns Hopkins University (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2011-06-06
Volume
108
Issue
25
Pages
10367-10371
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2132274525
Cited by
1,098
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 60 · 2025: 73 · 2024: 74 · 2023: 75 · 2022: 71 · 2021: 92 · 2020: 100 · 2019: 86 · 2018: 78 · 2017: 73 · 2016: 81 · 2015: 87 · 2014: 69 · 2013: 42 · 2012: 32
FWCI
23.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01DA013165)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Visual Attention and Saliency Detection
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
Keywords
attentional capture, value-driven attention, reward learning, visual search, salience, extinction, working memory capacity, impulsivity, cognitive control, addiction, obesity
MeSH terms
Attention, Discrimination, Psychological, Drive, Goals, Neuropsychological Tests, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Psychomotor Performance, Reaction Time, Reward, Visual Perception

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