» Articles » PMID: 34708867

Testing Reward-cue Attentional Salience: Attainment and Dynamic Changes

Overview
Journal Br J Psychol
Specialty Psychology
Date 2021 Oct 28
PMID 34708867
Citations 2
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

A great wealth of studies has investigated the capacity of motivationally relevant stimuli to bias attention, suggesting that reward predicting cues are prioritized even when reward is no longer delivered and when attending to such stimuli is detrimental to reward achievement. Despite multiple procedures have been adopted to unveil the mechanisms whereby reward cues gain attentional salience, some open questions remain. Indeed, mechanisms different from motivation can be responsible for the capture of attention triggered by the reward cue. In addition, we note that at present only a few studies have sought to address whether the cue attractiveness dynamically follows changes in the associated reward value. Investigating how and to what extent the salience of the reward cue is updated when motivation changes, could help shedding light on how reward-cues attain and maintain their capacity to attract attention, and therefore on apparent irrational attentive behaviors.

Citing Articles

Accumbal acetylcholine signals associative salience.

Zhang Z, Costa K, Zhuo Y, Li G, Li Y, Schoenbaum G bioRxiv. 2025; .

PMID: 39829875 PMC: 11741319. DOI: 10.1101/2025.01.06.631529.


The Incentive-Sensitization Theory of Addiction 30 Years On.

Robinson T, Berridge K Annu Rev Psychol. 2024; 76(1):29-58.

PMID: 39094061 PMC: 11773642. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-psych-011624-024031.


Value-driven modulation of visual perception by visual and auditory reward cues: The role of performance-contingent delivery of reward.

Antono J, Vakhrushev R, Pooresmaeili A Front Hum Neurosci. 2023; 16:1062168.

PMID: 36618995 PMC: 9816136. DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2022.1062168.


Testing reward-cue attentional salience: Attainment and dynamic changes.

De Tommaso M, Turatto M Br J Psychol. 2021; 113(2):396-411.

PMID: 34708867 PMC: 9298369. DOI: 10.1111/bjop.12537.

References
1.
Berridge K, Robinson T . Liking, wanting, and the incentive-sensitization theory of addiction. Am Psychol. 2016; 71(8):670-679. PMC: 5171207. DOI: 10.1037/amp0000059. View

2.
Failing M, Theeuwes J . Don't let it distract you: how information about the availability of reward affects attentional selection. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2017; 79(8):2275-2298. PMC: 5662709. DOI: 10.3758/s13414-017-1376-8. View

3.
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

4.
Maunsell J . Neuronal representations of cognitive state: reward or attention?. Trends Cogn Sci. 2004; 8(6):261-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2004.04.003. View

5.
Bromberg-Martin E, Hikosaka O . Midbrain dopamine neurons signal preference for advance information about upcoming rewards. Neuron. 2009; 63(1):119-26. PMC: 2723053. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuron.2009.06.009. View