Cited by 362Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorNeurobiology of Language and Bilingualism

Reward Reduces Conflict by Enhancing Attentional Control and Biasing Visual Cortical Processing

Open access
Padmala, Srikanth, Pessoa, Luiz·2011·Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

Abstract

How does motivation interact with cognitive control during challenging behavioral conditions? Here, we investigated the interactions between motivation and cognition during a response conflict task and tested a specific model of the effect of reward on cognitive processing. Behaviorally, participants exhibited reduced conflict during the reward versus no-reward condition. Brain imaging results revealed that a group of subcortical and fronto-parietal regions was robustly influenced by reward at cue processing and, importantly, that cue-related responses in fronto-parietal attentional regions were predictive of reduced conflict-related signals in the medial pFC (MPFC)/ACC during the upcoming target phase. Path analysis revealed that the relationship between cue responses in the right intraparietal sulcus (IPS) and interference-related responses in the MPFC during the subsequent target phase was mediated via signals in the left fusiform gyrus, which we linked to distractor-related processing. Finally, reward increased functional connectivity between the right IPS and both bilateral putamen and bilateral nucleus accumbens during the cue phase, a relationship that covaried with across-individual sensitivity to reward in the case of the right nucleus accumbens. Taken together, our findings are consistent with a model in which motivationally salient cues are employed to upregulate top–down control processes that bias the selection of visual information, thereby leading to more efficient stimulus processing during conflict conditions.

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 · 10.1162/jocn_a_00011

Cites

77 of 77 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?

  • Incentive reward evoked activity in large distributed brain networks, particularly those associated with attention and dopamine release.

    “studies by Pessoa and colleagues demonstrated that incentive reward evoked activity in large distributed brain networks, particularly those associated with attention and dopamine release (Engelmann et al., 2009; Padmala & Pessoa, 2011; for a review, see Pessoa & Engelmann, 2010).”

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

    The Results (Functional MRI results; page not provided) report stronger reward-cue responses in cortical fronto-parietal and subcortical regions. The Discussion identifies the fronto-parietal network as involved in attention and names reward-responsive midbrain sites, but our copy does not identify these networks as associated with dopamine release or measure dopamine release. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Padmala, S., & Pessoa, L.
Affiliations
  • Indiana University (US)
  • University of Maryland, College Park (US)
Venue
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
Publisher
MIT Press
Published
2011-11-01
Volume
23
Issue
11
Pages
3419-3432
ISSN
  • 0898-929X (ISSN-L)
  • 1530-8898
OpenAlex
W2164766456
Cited by
362
References
77
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 34 · 2018: 34 · 2017: 28 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 31 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 8
FWCI
9.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Lilly Endowment
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH071589)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
Keywords
reward, cognitive control, response conflict, Stroop-like interference, motivation, attentional control, intraparietal sulcus, medial prefrontal cortex, anterior cingulate cortex, nucleus accumbens, putamen, fusiform gyrus, functional connectivity, top-down control, visual processing
MeSH terms
Adult, Analysis of Variance, Attention, Brain Mapping, Conflict, Psychological, Cues, Female, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Individuality, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Neuropsychological Tests, Oxygen, Personality, Photic Stimulation, Surveys and Questionnaires, Reaction Time, Reward, Visual Cortex, Bias, 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