Mixed signals: The effect of conflicting reward- and goal-driven biases on selective attention

Abstract

Attentional selection depends on the interaction between exogenous (stimulus-driven), endogenous (goal-driven), and selection history (experience-driven) factors. While endogenous and exogenous biases have been widely investigated, less is known about their interplay with value-driven attention. The present study investigated the interaction between reward-history and goal-driven biases on perceptual sensitivity (d’) and response time (RT) in a modified cueing paradigm presenting two coloured cues, followed by sinusoidal gratings. Participants responded to the orientation of one of these gratings. In Experiment 1, one cue signalled reward availability but was otherwise task irrelevant. In Experiment 2, the same cue signalled reward, and indicated the target’s most likely location at the opposite side of the display. This design introduced a conflict between reward-driven biases attracting attention and goal-driven biases directing it away. Attentional effects were examined comparing trials in which cue and target appeared at the same versus opposite locations. Two interstimulus interval (ISI) levels were used to probe the time course of attentional effects. Experiment 1 showed performance benefits at the location of the reward-signalling cue and costs at the opposite for both ISIs, indicating value-driven capture. Experiment 2 showed performance benefits only for the long ISI when the target was at the opposite to the reward-associated cue. At the short ISI, only performance costs were observed. These results reveal the time course of these biases, indicating that reward-driven effects influence attention early but can be overcome later by goal-driven control. This suggests that reward-driven biases are integrated as attentional priorities, just as exogenous and endogenous factors.

Motor selection dynamics in FEF explain the reaction time variance of saccades to single targets

“…This is the internal bias signal created by reward expectation, which in this case is spatially congruent with both the target and the saccade. This baseline signal is consistent with previous neurophysiological studies using the 1DR task ( Takikawa et al, 2002 ; Sato and Hikosaka, 2002 ; Ding and Hikosaka, 2006 ), and may be interpreted as a neural correlate of spatial attention ( Maunsell, 2004 ; Peck et al, 2009 ; Preciado et al, 2017 ).…”

Motor selection dynamics in FEF explain the reaction time variance of saccades to single targets

“…That is the internal bias signal created by reward expectation, which in this case is spatially congruent with both the target and the saccade. This baseline signal is consistent with previous neurophysiological studies using the 1DR task (Takikawa et al, 2002; Sato and Hikosaka, 2002; Ikeda and Hikosaka, 2003), and may be interpreted as a neural correlate of spatial attention (Maunsell, 2004; Preciado et al, 2017).…”

“…That expectation (and/or attention; Maunsell, 2004; Preciado et al, 2017) is what drives the variations in baseline is clear; during each block, the rewarded location is known to the subject during the fixation period, whereas the target location is not. So it is important to underscore that, during incongruent trials, the baseline activity R b (firing rate in a 250 ms window preceding target onset) is strongly predictive of outcome.…”

All-or-None Context Dependence Delineates Limits of FEF Visual Target Selection

“…A primary distinction between the CS and CO tasks is the degree to which they are presumed to engage exogenous, or saliency-dependent, attention (defining the saliency of a stimulus requires some nuance that goes beyond consideration of physical attributes, but the distinction is clear across our experimental conditions; see [32,33]). Regardless of urgency, oddball tasks strongly promote congruence between target location, spatial attention, and ultimately, motor planning.…”

“…Moreover, the saliency of a feature singleton is positively modulated by perceptual priming effects that occur when the oddball stimulus is the same color on multiple trials in succession [37][38][39]. Such non-volitional priming, along with the learned association between singleton and rewarded saccadic choice, are factors that would tend to reinforce the inherent saliency of the target and presumably its neural correlate in V cell activity [26,33,40]. In contrast, the CS task minimizes the import of saliency-based mechanisms to guiding choice by limiting physical saliency as a means of preferentially drawing attention to the target on any given trial (for discussion, see [20]).…”