CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 164Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorVisual perception and processing mechanisms

Reward Guides Vision when It's Your Thing: Trait Reward-Seeking in Reward-Mediated Visual Priming

Open access
Hickey, Clayton, Chelazzi, Leonardo, Theeuwes, Jan·2010·PLoS ONE
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0014087PMC PMC2990710
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Reward-related mesolimbic dopamine is thought to play an important role in guiding animal behaviour, biasing approach towards potentially beneficial environmental stimuli and away from objects unlikely to garner positive outcome. This is considered to result in part from an impact on perceptual and attentional processes: dopamine initiates a series of cognitive events that result in the priming of reward-associated perceptual features. We have provided behavioural and electrophysiological evidence that this mechanism guides human vision in search, an effect we refer to as reward priming. We have also demonstrated that there is substantial individual variability in this effect. Here we show that behavioural differences in reward priming are predicted remarkably well by a personality index that captures the degree to which a person's behaviour is driven by reward outcome. Participants with reward-seeking personalities are found to be those who allocate visual resources to objects characterized by reward-associated visual features. These results add to a rapidly developing literature demonstrating the crucial role reward plays in attentional control. They additionally illustrate the striking impact personality traits can have on low-level cognitive processes like perception and selective attention.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0014087

Cites

6 of 6 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?

  • Higher impulsivity as well as stronger behavioral approach drive and reward responsiveness are associated with a larger effect of reward on attentional selection.

    “Higher impulsivity (Anderson et al., 2011, 2013) as well as stronger behavioral approach drive (Hickey, Chelazzi, and Theeuwes, 2010b) and reward responsiveness (Hickey & Peelen, 2015) as measured by the Barratt Impulsiveness scale (Patton, Stanford, & Barratt, 1995) and BIS/BAS questionnaire (Carver & White, 1994) have been associated with a larger effect of reward on attentional selection”

    From Selection history: How reward modulates selectivity of visual attention. (2018) · cites this paper as Hickey, Chelazzi, and Theeuwes, 2010b

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: 28

  1. [2]Ikemoto S Panksepp J 1999 The role of nucleus accumbens dopamine in motivated behavior: A unifying interpretation with special reference to reward-seeking. Brain Res Rev 31 6 41 10611493
  2. [3]Redgrave P Prescott TJ Gurney K 1999 Is the short-latency dopamine response too short to signal reward error? Trends Neurosci 22 146 51 10203849
  3. [4]Schultz W 2002 Getting formal with dopamine and reward. Neuron 36 241 63 12383780
  4. [6]Robinson TE Berridge KC 1993 The neural basis of drug craving: An incentive-sensitization theory of addiction. Brain Res Rev 18 247 291 8401595
  5. [7]Della Libera C Chelazzi L 2006 Visual selective attention and the effects of monetary rewards. Psychol Sci 17 222 7 16507062
  6. [8]Della Libera C Chelazzi L 2009 Learning to attend and to ignore is a matter of gains and losses. Psychol Sci 20 778 784 19422618
  7. [9]Wolfe JM Cave KR Franzel SL 1989 Guided search: An alternative to the feature integration model for visual search. J Exp Psychol Human 15 419 433 2527952
  8. [10]Treisman A Gelade G 1980 A feature integration theory of attention. Cog Psych 12 97 136 7351125
  9. [12]Hickey C Chelazzi L Theeuwes J 2010 Reward has a residual impact on target selection in visual search, but not on suppression of distractors. Vis Cog: In press DOI: 10.1080/13506285.2010.503946 · DOI · Paper page
  10. [13]Theeuwes J 1991 Cross-dimensional perceptual selectivity. Attention Percept Psychophys 50 184 93 1945740
  11. [14]Hickey C McDonald JJ Theeuwes J 2006 Electrophysiological evidence for the capture of visual attention. J Cog Neurosci 18 604 613 16768363
  12. [15]Hickey C van Zoest W Theeuwes J 2010 The time course of exogenous and endogenous control of covert attention. Exp Brain Res 201 789 796 19940982 PMC2839488
  13. [16]Burnham BR 2007 Displaywide visual features associated with a search display's appearance can mediate attentional capture. Psychonom Bull Rev 14 392 422 17874581
  14. [17]Theeuwes J 2010 Top-down and bottom-up control of visual selection. Acta Psychol 123 77 99 20507828
  15. [19]Luck SJ 2005 An introduction to the event-related potential technique. Cambridge, MA MIT Press
  16. [20]Gehring WJ Willoughby AR 2002 The medial frontal cortex and the rapid processing of monetary gains and losses. Science 295 2279 82 11910116
  17. [23]Gray JA 1987 The psychology of fear and stress (2nd ed.). Cambridge UK Cambridge University Press
  18. [24]Fowles DC 1994 A motivational theory of psychopathology. Spaulding WD Integrative views of motivation, cognition, and emotion Iowa City, IA University of Nebraska Press 181 238 7739747
  19. [26]Gray JA Moran PM Grigoryan G Peters SL Young AM 1997 Latent inhibition: The nucleus accumbens connection revisited. Behav Brain Res 88 27 34 9401705
  20. [27]Gray JA 1995 The role of mesolimbic dopaminergic and retrohippocampal afferents to the nucleus accumbens in latent inhibition: Implications for schizophrenia. Behav Brain Res 71 19 31 8747172
  21. [28]Beaver JD Lawrence AD van Ditzhuijzen J Davis MH Woods A 2006 Individual differences in reward drive neural responses to images of food. J Neurosci: 26 5160 5166 16687507 PMC6674259
  22. [29]van Steenbergen H Band GP Hommel B 2009 Reward counteracts conflict adaptation: Evidence for a role of affect in executive control. Psychol Sci 20 1473 1477 19906127
  23. [30]Boksem MAS Tops M Wester AE Meijman TF Lorist MM 2006 Error-related ERP components and individual differences in punishment and reward sensitivity. Brain Res Rev 1101 92 101 16784728
  24. [32]Horstmann G 2002 Evidence for attentional capture by a surprising color singleton in visual search. Psycholog Sci 13 499 505 12430832
  25. [33]Yantis S Hillstrom AP 1994 Stimulus-Driven attentional capture: Evidence from equiluminant visual objects. J Exp Psychol Human 20 95 107 8133227
  26. [34]Chen PY Popovich PM 2002 Correlation: Parametric and nonparametric measures. Thousand Oaks, CA Sage Publications
  27. [35]Raymond JE O'Brien JL 2009 Selective visual attention and motivation: The consequences of value learning in an attentional blink task. Psycholog Sci 20 981 988 19549080
  28. [38]Weinstein AM 1995 Visual ERPs evidence for enhanced processing of threatening information in anxious university students. Biol Psychiat 37 847 858 7548459

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hickey, C., Chelazzi, L., & Theeuwes, J.
Affiliations
  • Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL)
  • University of Verona (IT)
Corresponding author
Hickey, Clayton
ORCID
Venue
PLoS ONE
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2010-11-23
Volume
5
Issue
11
Pages
e14087
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0014087
PMC
PMC2990710
OpenAlex
W2093096701
Cited by
164
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 23 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 16
FWCI
6.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • VU Research Portal (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Digital Academic REpository of VU University Amsterdam (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Institutional Research Information System (Università degli Studi di Trento) (submittedVersion)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion)
  • VU Research Portal (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio di Verona Vicenza Belluno e Ancona
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 › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
Keywords
visual priming, individual differences, dopamine, mesolimbic system, attentional control, selective attention, visual perception, personality traits
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Attention, Behavior, Cognition, Female, Humans, Male, Psychomotor Performance, Reward, Vision, Ocular, Visual Perception, Electrophysiological Phenomena, 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