Fortune and reversals of fortune in visual search: Reward contingencies for pop-out targets affect search efficiency and target repetition effects
Open accessAbstract
Rewards have long been known to modulate overt behavior. But their possible impact on attentional and perceptual processes is less well documented. Here, we study whether the (changeable) reward level associated with two different pop-out targets might affect visual search and trial-to-trial target repetition effects (see Maljkovic & Nakayama, 1994). Observers searched for a target diamond shape with a singleton color among distractor diamond shapes of another color (e.g., green among red or vice versa) and then judged whether the target had a notch at its top or bottom. Correct judgments led to reward, with symbolic feedback indicating this immediately; actual rewards accumulated for receipt at study end. One particular target color led to a higher (10:1) reward for 75% of its correct judgments, whereas the other singleton target color (counterbalanced over participants) yielded the higher reward on only 25% of the trials. We measured search performance in terms of inverse efficiency (response time/proportion correct). The reward schedules not only led to better performance overall for the more rewarding target color, but also increased trial-to-trial priming for successively repeated targets in that color. The actual level of reward received on the preceding trial affected this, as did (orthogonally) the likely level. When reward schedules were reversed within blocks, without explicit instruction, corresponding reversal of the impact on search performance emerged within around 6 trials, asymptoting at around 15 trials, apparently without the observers' explicit knowledge of the contingency. These results establish that pop-out search and target repetition effects can be influenced by target reward levels, with search performance and repetition effects dynamically tracking changes in reward contingency.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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 intertrial priming affects predominantly target representations.
“reward intertrial priming affects predominantly target representations (e.g., Hickey, Chelazzi, & Theeuwes, 2011; Kristjánsson et al., 2010).”
From Selection history: How reward modulates selectivity of visual attention. (2018) · cites this paper as Kristjánsson et al., 2010
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 47 · Cited by 137
- Authors
- Kristjansson, A., Sigurjonsdottir, O., & Driver, J.
- Affiliations
- University of Iceland (IS)
- University College London (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Kristjansson, A.
- ORCID
- Kristjansson, A.
- Venue
- Attention, Perception & Psychophysics
- Published
- 2010-06-30
- Volume
- 72
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1229-1236
- ISSN
- 1943-3921 (ISSN-L)
- 1943-393X
- OpenAlex
- W2051141224
- Cited by
- 137
- References
- 47
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 12
- FWCI
- 7.18
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Attention Perception & Psychophysics (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Wellcome Trust
- Háskóli Íslands
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Visual Attention and Saliency Detection
- Keywords
- visual search, pop-out, reward contingency, attentional modulation, search efficiency, reversal learning
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Arousal, Attention, Color Perception, Discrimination Learning, Female, Humans, Judgment, Male, Memory, Short-Term, Middle Aged, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Practice, Psychological, Psychophysics, Reinforcement Schedule, Reversal Learning, Reward, Feedback, Psychological, 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