Cited by 158Visual perception and processing mechanismsNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesVisual Attention and Saliency Detection

A unified selection signal for attention and reward in primary visual cortex

Open access
Stănişor, Liviu, van der Togt, Chris, Pennartz, Cyriel M. A., Roelfsema, Pieter R.·2013·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

Stimuli associated with high rewards evoke stronger neuronal activity than stimuli associated with lower rewards in many brain regions. It is not well understood how these reward effects influence activity in sensory cortices that represent low-level stimulus features. Here, we investigated the effects of reward information in the primary visual cortex (area V1) of monkeys. We found that the reward value of a stimulus relative to the value of other stimuli is a good predictor of V1 activity. Relative value biases the competition between stimuli, just as has been shown for selective attention. The neuronal latency of this reward value effect in V1 was similar to the latency of attentional influences. Moreover, V1 neurons with a strong value effect also exhibited a strong attention effect, which implies that relative value and top-down attention engage overlapping, if not identical, neuronal selection mechanisms. Our findings demonstrate that the effects of reward value reach down to the earliest sensory processing levels of the cerebral cortex and imply that theories about the effects of reward coding and top-down attention on visual representations should be unified.

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.1300117110

Cites

49 of 49 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 AGREL networks and variants like KickBack give a way to compute an approximation to the full gradient in a reinforcement learning context using a feedback-based attention mechanism for credit assignment within the multi-layer network.

    “The “attention-gated reinforcement learning” (AGREL) networks of Stanisor et al. (2013), Brosch et al. (2015), and Roelfsema and van Ooyen (2005), and variants like KickBack (Balduzzi, 2014), give a way to compute an approximation to the full gradient in a reinforcement learning context using a feedback-based attention mechanism for credit assignment within the multi-layer network.”

    From Toward an integration of deep learning and neuroscience (2016) · cites this paper as Stanisor et al., 2013

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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [50]50. National Research Council, Committee for the Update of the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, and Institute for Laboratory Animal Research (2011) Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (National Academies Press, Washington, DC), 8th Ed. Associated Data This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Stănişor, L., van der Togt, C., Pennartz, C. M. A., & Roelfsema, P. R.
Affiliations
  • Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience (NL)
  • Department of Vision and Cognition, Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience, Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, 1105 BA Amsterdam, The Netherlands;
  • University of Amsterdam (NL)
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2013-05-15
Volume
110
Issue
22
Pages
9136-9141
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2128585328
Cited by
158
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 1
FWCI
9.11
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)
  • UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (publishedVersion)
  • KNAW Research Portal (The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences) (publishedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion)
  • VU Research Portal (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Visual Attention and Saliency Detection
Keywords
primary visual cortex, reward value, top-down attention, relative value, stimulus competition, attentional modulation, reward coding, visual representation, neuronal latency, monkeys
MeSH terms
Action Potentials, Analysis of Variance, Animals, Haplorhini, Attention, Color, Cues, Psychomotor Performance, Reaction Time, Reward, Saccades, Visual Cortex

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