Combined effects of attention and motivation on visual task performance: Transient and sustained motivational effects

Abstract

We investigated how the brain integrates motivational and attentional signals by using a neuroimaging paradigm that provided separate estimates for transient cue- and target-related signals, in addition to sustained block-related responses. Participants performed a Posner-type task in which an endogenous cue predicted target location on 70% of trials, while motivation was manipulated by varying magnitude and valence of a cash incentive linked to task performance. Our findings revealed increased detection performance (d′) as a function of incentive value. In parallel, brain signals revealed that increases in absolute incentive magnitude led to cue- and target-specific response modulations that were independent of sustained state effects across visual cortex, fronto-parietal regions, and subcortical regions. Interestingly, state-like effects of incentive were observed in several of these brain regions, too, suggesting that both transient and sustained fMRI signals may contribute to task performance. For both cue and block periods, the effects of administering incentives were correlated with individual trait measures of reward sensitivity. Taken together, our findings support the notion that motivation improves behavioral performance in a demanding attention task by enhancing evoked responses across a distributed set of anatomical sites, many of which have been previously implicated in attentional processing. However, the effect of motivation was not simply additive as the impact of absolute incentive was greater during invalid than valid trials in several brain regions, possibly because motivation had a larger effect on reorienting than orienting attentional mechanisms at these sites.

Prefrontal cortex mediation of cognitive enhancement in rewarding motivational contexts

“…S3, SI Results), suggesting that the shift in activation dynamics was purely contextual in rewarding situations. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that such transient effects of trial reward value have been observed together with sustained effects (6), and indeed were observed in other brain regions in this dataset (27).…”

“…When motivational salience is high, the increased value of the behavioral goal to be achieved needs to be translated into an optimal cognitive strategy (1)(2)(3). Previous experimental evidence suggests that such a translation does occur, because both cognitive performance and brain activity are enhanced in behavioral situations paired with motivational incentives (e.g., monetary rewards) (4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11). Importantly, these behavioral and neural enhancements have been found to be associated with the potential reward value available on specific trials.…”

How motivation and reward learning modulate selective attention

“…These studies have consistently reported a beneficial effect of monetary reward on attentional performance, attested by faster response times or increased detection performances, which could be linked to an increased perceptual sensitivity of the brain for rewarded stimuli (ie, Engelmann et al, 2009;Mohanty et al, 2008;Small et al, 2005). In all these studies, however, performance is directly linked to the reward outcome, that is, individuals are motivated to improve attention capacity in order to gain more reward.…”

Specifying the Self for Cognitive Neuroscience

“…First, the identified regions, especially the midline regions (mPFC, Precuneus/PCC) often associated with self-related processing [4,[7][8][9][10], might not be self-specific, because they are also recruited for a wide range of other cognitive processes -recall of information from memory, inferential reasoning, and representing others' mental states [3,5,6]. In addition, the PCC appears to be engaged in attentional processes and might be a hub for attention and motivation [11,12], whereas the TPJ is important for attentional reorienting [13]. Hence, describing these regions (singly or collectively) as self-specific could be unwarranted [3,5,6].…”