Cited by 365Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesVisual Attention and Saliency DetectionVisual perception and processing mechanisms

Visual Selective Attention and the Effects of Monetary Rewards

Libera, Chiara Della, Chelazzi, Leonardo·2006·Psychological Science

Abstract

Outcomes of actions, in the form of rewards and punishments, are known to shape behavior. For example, an action followed by reward will be more readily elicited on subsequent encounters with the same stimuli and context—a phenomenon known as the law of effect. These consequences of rewards (and punishments) are important because they reinforce adaptive behaviors at the expense of competing ones, thus increasing fitness of the organism in its environment. However, it is unknown whether similar influences regulate covert mental processes, such as visual selective attention. Visual selective attention allows privileged processing of task-relevant information, while inhibiting distracting contextual elements. Using variable monetary rewards as arbitrary feedback on performance, we tested whether acts of attentional selection, and in particular the resulting aftereffects, can be modulated by their consequences. Results show that the efficacy of visual selective attention can be sensibly adjusted by external feedback. Specifically, although lingering inhibition of distractors is robust after highly rewarded selections, it is eliminated after poorly rewarded selections. This powerful feature of visual selective attention provides attentive processes with both flexibility and self-regulation properties.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01689.x

Cites

37 of 37 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?

  • Della Libera and Chelazzi (2006) demonstrated modulations of global and local stimulus priming by reward, suggesting that stimuli for whose inhibition participants were rewarded were subsequently harder to select.

    “They demonstrated modulations of global and local stimulus priming by reward, suggesting that stimuli, for whose inhibition participants were rewarded, were subsequently harder to select.”

    From Selection history: How reward modulates selectivity of visual attention. (2018) · cites this paper as Della Libera & Chelazzi, 2006

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Libera, C. D., & Chelazzi, L.
Affiliations
University of Verona (IT)
Corresponding author
Chelazzi, Leonardo
Venue
Psychological Science
Published
2006-03
Volume
17
Issue
3
Pages
222-227
ISSN
  • 0956-7976 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-9280
OpenAlex
W2120538824
Cited by
365
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 72 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 23 · 2016: 22 · 2015: 32 · 2014: 30 · 2013: 25 · 2012: 20
FWCI
2.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychological Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca
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 › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
Keywords
visual selective attention, monetary rewards, law of effect, distractor inhibition, feedback, reward magnitude, attentional flexibility, self-regulation
MeSH terms
Adult, Analysis of Variance, Attention, Choice Behavior, Cues, Female, Humans, Male, Reaction Time, Reward, Students, Time Factors, 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