Anticipation of Monetary Reward Can Attenuate the Vigilance Decrement

Abstract

Motivation and reward can have differential effects on separate aspects of sustained attention. We previously demonstrated that continuous reward/punishment throughout a sustained attention task improves overall performance, but not vigilance decrements. One interpretation of these findings is that vigilance decrements are due to resource depletion, which is not overcome by increasing overall motivation. However, an alternative explanation is that as one performs a continuously rewarded task there are less potential gains/losses as the task progresses, which could decrease motivation over time, producing a vigilance decrement. This would predict that keeping future gains/losses consistent throughout the task would reduce the vigilance decrement. In the current study, we examined this possibility by comparing two versions (continuous-small loss vs. anticipate-large loss) of a 10-minute gradual onset continuous performance task (gradCPT), a challenging go/no-go sustained attention task. Participants began each task with the potential to keep $18. In the continuous-small-loss version, small monetary losses were accrued continuously throughout the task for each error. However, in the anticipate-large-loss version, participants lost all $18 if they erroneously responded to one target that always appeared toward the end of the vigil. Typical vigilance decrements were observed in the continuous-small-loss condition. In the anticipate-large-loss condition, vigilance decrements were reduced, particularly when the anticipate-large loss condition was completed second. This suggests that the looming possibility of a large loss can attenuate the vigilance decrement and that this attenuation may occur most consistently after sufficient task experience. We discuss these results in the context of current theories of sustained attention.

Controlled information processing, automaticity, and the burden of proof

“…These sustained influences of motivation are coupled with modulations of the transient signals evoked by reward-related stimuli and tasks (Jimura et al, 2010;Pessoa & Engelmann, 2010), mirroring the just described benefits observed for reward-associated stimuli (e.g., Kiss et al, 2009;Serences, 2008). One interpretation of these findings is that such motivation effects reflect volitional adjustments in task engagement, resulting in attention being better focused on task-related stimuli (e.g., Esterman et al, 2016;Esterman, Poole, Liu, & DeGutis, 2017;Esterman, Reagan, Liu, Turner, & DeGutis, 2014).…”

Recent theoretical, neural, and clinical advances in sustained attention research

“…The results of recent studies have produced findings that are difficult for either theory to fully explain. As noted by Thompson et al,27 findings that increasing task engagement can improve performance on some tasks despite increasing task demands 28,29 and that self-reported mind wandering increases with time on task 21,30 are inconsistent with the resource-depletion account. In contrast, pure mindwandering accounts have difficulty accounting for reports 12,16 that vigilance tasks are stressful/effortful and that factors that increase attention to the task (e.g., displaying pleasant stimuli) either have no effect on or decrease sustained attention performance.…”

“…found that these typical reward manipulations increased overall performance (i.e., higher accuracy and lower response variability), while vigilance decrements in performance over time were unaffected. In order to keep overall task value constant, another study was completed where participants had the opportunity to gain a significant reward of $18 if they correctly withheld response to a specific target mountain scene. Results here showed that the typical vigilance decrement found in the previous study could be eliminated when the anticipated large reward was withheld until the end of the 10‐min run.…”

Striatal responsiveness to reward under threat‐of‐shock and working memory load: A preliminary study

“…To achieve a better understanding of how stress and cognition interact to modulate the reward processes, it is necessary to determine how each of these factors per se influences motivation and hedonic experience. Previous research has focused on the complex relationship between cognition, motivation, and hedonic capacities (Akaishi & Hayden, ; Esterman et al, ; O'Connor, Rossiter, Yücel, Lubman, & Hester, ; Rothkirch, Schmack, Deserno, Darmohray, & Sterzer, ). A large body of research evidenced the effort‐discounting effect on reward valuation, so that the effort exerted to obtain a desired reward decreases as effort cost increases (for a review, see Kurniawan, ).…”