Cited by 37Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorVisual perception and processing mechanisms

Ventromedial Frontal Cortex Is Critical for Guiding Attention to Reward-Predictive Visual Features in Humans

Open access
Vaidya, Avinash R., Fellows, Lesley K.·2015·The Journal of Neuroscience

Abstract

Adaptively interacting with our environment requires extracting information that will allow us to successfully predict reward. This can be a challenge, particularly when there are many candidate cues, and when rewards are probabilistic. Recent work has demonstrated that visual attention is allocated to stimulus features that have been associated with reward on previous trials. The ventromedial frontal lobe (VMF) has been implicated in learning in dynamic environments of this kind, but the mechanism by which this region influences this process is not clear. Here, we hypothesized that the VMF plays a critical role in guiding attention to reward-predictive stimulus features based on feedback. We tested the effects of VMF damage in human subjects on a visual search task in which subjects were primed to attend to task-irrelevant colors associated with different levels of reward, incidental to the search task. Consistent with previous work, we found that distractors had a greater influence on reaction time when they appeared in colors associated with high reward in the previous trial compared with colors associated with low reward in healthy control subjects and patients with prefrontal damage sparing the VMF. However, this reward modulation of attentional priming was absent in patients with VMF damage. Thus, an intact VMF is necessary for directing attention based on experience with cue–reward associations. We suggest that this region plays a role in selecting reward-predictive cues to facilitate future learning. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT There has been a swell of interest recently in the ventromedial frontal cortex (VMF), a brain region critical to associative learning. However, the underlying mechanism by which this region guides learning is not well understood. Here, we tested the effects of damage to this region in humans on a task in which rewards were linked incidentally to visual features, resulting in trial-by-trial attentional priming. Controls and subjects with prefrontal damage sparing the VMF showed normal reward priming, but VMF-damaged patients did not. This work sheds light on a potential mechanism through which this region influences behavior. We suggest that the VMF is necessary for directing attention to reward-predictive visual features based on feedback, facilitating future learning and decision-making.

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 · 10.1523/jneurosci.1607-15.2015

Cites

86 of 86 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?

  • Patients with a lesion in the ventromedial frontal cortex did not show intertrial reward priming, whereas healthy controls and patients with a lesion in the lateral or dorsomedial frontal lobe did.

    “Vaidya and Fellows (2015) found that while healthy controls and patients with a lesion in the lateral or the dorsomedial frontal lobe showed intertrial reward priming, patients with a lesion in the ventromedial frontal cortex (vmPFC) did not (but see Manohar & Husain, 2016).”

    From Selection history: How reward modulates selectivity of visual attention. (2018) · cites this paper as Vaidya and Fellows (2015)

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: 2

  1. Le Pelley ME (2010a) in Attention and associative learning: from brain to behaviour, Attention and human associative learning, eds Mitchell CJ Le Pelley ME (Oxford UP, Oxford, UK).
  2. Pearce JM Mackintosh NJ (2010) in Attention and associative learning: from brain to behaviour, Two theories of attention: a review and a possible integration, eds Mitchell CJ Le Pelley ME (Oxford UP, Oxford, UK).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Vaidya, A. R., & Fellows, L. K.
Affiliations
Montreal Neurological Institute and Hospital (CA)
Venue
The Journal of Neuroscience
Published
2015-09-16
Volume
35
Issue
37
Pages
12813-12823
ISSN
  • 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-2401
OpenAlex
W1415964294
Cited by
37
References
86
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 8
FWCI
3.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • University of Pennsylvania
  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research (97821_1)
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
reward prediction, visual attention, attentional priming, visual search, distractor interference, feedback-driven learning, associative learning, decision-making
MeSH terms
Aged, Attention, Brain Mapping, Cues, Female, Forecasting, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Neuropsychological Tests, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Psychomotor Performance, Reward, Prefrontal Cortex, Feedback, Physiological, Spatial Processing

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