Cited by 65Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesVisual perception and processing mechanismsVisual Attention and Saliency Detection

Value-modulated oculomotor capture by task-irrelevant stimuli is a consequence of early competition on the saccade map

Open access
Pearson, Daniel, Osborn, Raphaella, Whitford, Thomas J., Failing, Michel, Theeuwes, Jan, Le Pelley, Mike E.·2016·Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics

Abstract

Recent research has shown that reward learning can modulate oculomotor and attentional capture by physically salient and task-irrelevant distractor stimuli, even when directing gaze to those stimuli is directly counterproductive to receiving reward. This value-modulated oculomotor capture effect may reflect biased competition in the oculomotor system, such that the relationship between a stimulus feature and reward enhances that feature's representation on an internal priority map. However, it is also possible that this effect is a result of reward reducing the threshold for a saccade to be made to salient items. Here, we demonstrate value-modulated oculomotor capture when two reward-associated distractor stimuli are presented simultaneously in the same search display. The influence of reward on oculomotor capture is found to be most prominent at the shortest saccade latencies. We conclude that the value-modulated oculomotor capture effect is a consequence of biased competition on the saccade priority map and cannot be explained by a general reduction in saccadic threshold.

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 · 10.3758/s13414-016-1135-2

Cites

56 of 56 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?

  • Finding no consistent modulation in saccadic latencies due to reward-signaling distractors may suggest that reward simply lowers the threshold, which must be surpassed in order to elicit a saccade in a feature-specific manner.

    “Finding no consistent modulation in saccadic latencies due to reward-signaling distractors may therefore suggest that reward simply lowers the threshold, which must be surpassed in order to elicit a saccade in a feature-specific manner (Failing et al., 2015; Pearson et al., 2016).”

    From Selection history: How reward modulates selectivity of visual attention. (2018) · cites this paper as Pearson et al., 2016

  • Failing and colleagues observed oculomotor capture of stimuli that signal high reward relative to those that signaled low reward but no difference in saccadic latencies.

    “Failing and colleagues observed oculomotor capture of stimuli that signal high reward relative to those that signaled low reward but no difference in saccadic latencies (Failing et al., 2015; Pearson et al., 2016; see also Theeuwes & Belopolsky, 2012).”

    From Selection history: How reward modulates selectivity of visual attention. (2018) · cites this paper as Pearson et al., 2016

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
Pearson, D., Osborn, R., Whitford, T. J., Failing, M., Theeuwes, J., & Le Pelley, M. E.
Affiliations
  • UNSW Sydney (AU)
  • Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL)
Corresponding author
Pearson, Daniel
Venue
Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics
Published
2016-05-16
Volume
78
Issue
7
Pages
2226-2240
ISSN
  • 1943-3921 (ISSN-L)
  • 1943-393X
OpenAlex
W2403831445
Cited by
65
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 7
FWCI
4.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Attention Perception & Psychophysics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • VU Research Portal (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • European Research Council (ERC-2012-AdG-323413)
  • Australian Research Council (FT100100260)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Visual Attention and Saliency Detection
Keywords
oculomotor capture, reward learning, task-irrelevant distractors, biased competition, saccade latency, visual search, attentional capture
MeSH terms
Attention, Eye Movements, Female, Humans, Male, Reaction Time, Reward, Saccades, 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