» Articles » PMID: 29208918

The Necessity to Choose Causes the Effects of Reward on Saccade Preparation

Overview
Journal Sci Rep
Specialty Science
Date 2017 Dec 7
PMID 29208918
Citations 4
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

When humans have to choose between different options, they can maximize their payoff by choosing the option that yields the highest reward. Information about reward is not only used to optimize decisions but also for movement preparation to minimize reaction times to rewarded targets. Here, we show that this is especially true in contexts in which participants additionally have to choose between different options. We probed eye movement preparation by measuring saccade latencies to differently rewarded single targets (single-trial) appearing left or right from fixation. In choice-trials, both targets were displayed and participants were free to decide for one target to receive the corresponding reward. In blocks without choice-trials, single-trial latencies were not or only weakly affected by reward. With choice-trials present, the influence of reward increased with the proportion and difficulty of choices and decreased when a cue indicated that no choice will be necessary. Choices caused a delay in subsequent single-trial responses to the non-chosen option. Taken together, our results suggest that reward affects saccade preparation mainly when the outcome is uncertain and depends on the participants' behavior, for instance when they have to choose between targets differing in reward.

Citing Articles

Vision as oculomotor reward: cognitive contributions to the dynamic control of saccadic eye movements.

Wolf C, Lappe M Cogn Neurodyn. 2021; 15(4):547-568.

PMID: 34367360 PMC: 8286912. DOI: 10.1007/s11571-020-09661-y.


Choice-induced inter-trial inhibition is modulated by idiosyncratic choice-consistency.

Wolf C, Schutz A PLoS One. 2019; 14(12):e0226982.

PMID: 31877183 PMC: 6932778. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0226982.


The Limitations of Reward Effects on Saccade Latencies: An Exploration of Task-Specificity and Strength.

Dunne S, Ellison A, Smith D Vision (Basel). 2019; 3(2).

PMID: 31735821 PMC: 6802780. DOI: 10.3390/vision3020020.


The possibility to make choices modulates feature-based effects of reward.

Heuer A, Wolf C, Schutz A, Schubo A Sci Rep. 2019; 9(1):5749.

PMID: 30962490 PMC: 6453972. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-42255-1.

References
1.
Belopolsky A, Van der Stigchel S . Saccades curve away from previously inhibited locations: evidence for the role of priming in oculomotor competition. J Neurophysiol. 2013; 110(10):2370-7. DOI: 10.1152/jn.00293.2013. View

2.
Awh E, Belopolsky A, Theeuwes J . Top-down versus bottom-up attentional control: a failed theoretical dichotomy. Trends Cogn Sci. 2012; 16(8):437-43. PMC: 3426354. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2012.06.010. View

3.
Brainard D . The Psychophysics Toolbox. Spat Vis. 1997; 10(4):433-6. View

4.
Schutz A, Trommershauser J, Gegenfurtner K . Dynamic integration of information about salience and value for saccadic eye movements. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012; 109(19):7547-52. PMC: 3358910. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1115638109. View

5.
Feldmann-Wustefeld T, Schubo A . Intertrial priming due to distractor repetition is eliminated in homogeneous contexts. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2016; 78(7):1935-47. DOI: 10.3758/s13414-016-1115-6. View