Cited by 219Visual perception and processing mechanismsNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior

Reward modulates attention independently of action value in posterior parietal cortex

Open access
Peck, Christopher J., Jangraw, David C., Suzuki, Mototaka, Efem, Richard, Gottlieb, Jacqueline·2009·The Journal of Neuroscience

Abstract

While numerous studies have explored the mechanisms of reward-based decisions (the choice of action based on expected gain), few have asked how reward influences attention (the selection of information relevant for a decision). Here we show that a powerful determinant of attentional priority is the association between a stimulus and an appetitive reward. A peripheral cue heralded the delivery of reward or no reward (these cues are termed herein RC+ and RC−, respectively); to experience the predicted outcome, monkeys made a saccade to a target that appeared unpredictably at the same or opposite location relative to the cue. Although the RC had no operant associations (did not specify the required saccade), they automatically biased attention, such that an RC+ attracted attention and an RC− repelled attention from its location. Neurons in the lateral intraparietal area (LIP) encoded these attentional biases, maintaining sustained excitation at the location of an RC+ and inhibition at the location of an RC−. Contrary to the hypothesis that LIP encodes action value, neurons did not encode the expected reward of the saccade. Moreover, at odds with an adaptive decision process, the cue-evoked biases interfered with the required saccade, and these biases increased rather than abating with training. After prolonged training, valence selectivity appeared at shorter latencies and automatically transferred to a novel task context, suggesting that training produced visual plasticity. The results suggest that reward predictors gain automatic attentional priority regardless of their operant associations, and this valence-specific priority is encoded in LIP independently of the expected reward of an action.

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.1929-09.2009

Cites

37 of 37 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?

  • Reward-based selection history has also been reflected in activity of brain areas traditionally associated with attention, such as the OSC and IPS.

    “Reward-based selection history has also been reflected in activity of brain areas traditionally associated with attention, such as the OSC and IPS (Anderson, Leal, et al., 2014; Hickey & Peelen, 2015; Peck et al., 2009).”

    From Selection history: How reward modulates selectivity of visual attention. (2018) · cites this paper as Peck et al., 2009

  • The IPS and putamen are associated with response planning, oculomotor control, reward prediction, and outcome.

    “The IPS and putamen have both been associated with response planning, oculomotor control (Everling & Munoz, 2000), reward prediction (Peck et al., 2009) and outcome (Delgado et al., 2003).”
  • The neural substrates of emotional attention include the parietal lobe.

    “The neural substrates of emotional attention not very well understsood, but a recent experiment in our laboratory suggests that they include the parietal lobe.”

    From Attention, learning, and the value of information (2012) · cites this paper as Peck et al., 2009

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Peck, C. J., Jangraw, D. C., Suzuki, M., Efem, R., & Gottlieb, J.
Affiliations
Columbia University (US)
Venue
The Journal of Neuroscience
Published
2009-09-09
Volume
29
Issue
36
Pages
11182-11191
ISSN
  • 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-2401
OpenAlex
W2127625552
Cited by
219
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 24 · 2012: 19
FWCI
6.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung
  • National Institutes of Health (5r24ey015634-05)
  • National Eye Institute (R24 EY-015634, R01EY014697)
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (T32HD007430)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
Keywords
reward prediction, attentional bias, lateral intraparietal area, posterior parietal cortex, action value, saccade selection, visual plasticity, attentional priority, reward-based decision-making
MeSH terms
Action Potentials, Animals, Attention, Macaca mulatta, Male, Parietal Lobe, Photic Stimulation, Psychomotor Performance, Reward, Time Factors

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