Skip to main content
Top
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research 2/2019

25-01-2018 | Original Article

Multiple reward–cue contingencies favor expectancy over uncertainty in shaping the reward–cue attentional salience

Auteurs: Matteo De Tommaso, Tommaso Mastropasqua, Massimo Turatto

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 2/2019

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail

Abstract

Reward-predicting cues attract attention because of their motivational value. A debated question regards the conditions under which the cue’s attentional salience is governed more by reward expectancy rather than by reward uncertainty. To help shedding light on this relevant issue, here, we manipulated expectancy and uncertainty using three levels of reward-cue contingency, so that, for example, a high level of reward expectancy (p = .8) was compared with the highest level of reward uncertainty (p = .5). In Experiment 1, the best reward–cue during conditioning was preferentially attended in a subsequent visual search task. This result was replicated in Experiment 2, in which the cues were matched in terms of response history. In Experiment 3, we implemented a hybrid procedure consisting of two phases: an omission contingency procedure during conditioning, followed by a visual search task as in the previous experiments. Crucially, during both phases, the reward–cues were never task relevant. Results confirmed that, when multiple reward-cue contingencies are explored by a human observer, expectancy is the major factor controlling both the attentional and the oculomotor salience of the reward–cue.
Literatuur
go back to reference Cousineau, D. (2005). Confidence intervals in within-subject designs: A simpler solution to Loftus and Masson’s method. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 1(1), 42–45.CrossRef Cousineau, D. (2005). Confidence intervals in within-subject designs: A simpler solution to Loftus and Masson’s method. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 1(1), 42–45.CrossRef
go back to reference Cousineau, D. (2010). Outliers detection and treatment: a review. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3(1), 58–67.CrossRef Cousineau, D. (2010). Outliers detection and treatment: a review. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3(1), 58–67.CrossRef
go back to reference Le Pelley, M. E., Pearson, D., Griffiths, O., & Beesley, T. (2015). When goals conflict with values: Counterproductive attentional and oculomotor capture by reward-related stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(1), 158–171. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000037.CrossRef Le Pelley, M. E., Pearson, D., Griffiths, O., & Beesley, T. (2015). When goals conflict with values: Counterproductive attentional and oculomotor capture by reward-related stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(1), 158–171. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​xge0000037.CrossRef
go back to reference Robinson, M. J. F., Anselme, P., Suchomel, K., & Berridge, K. C. (2015). Amphetamine-induced sensitization and reward uncertainty similarly enhance incentive salience for conditioned cues. Behavioral Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.1037/bne0000064. Robinson, M. J. F., Anselme, P., Suchomel, K., & Berridge, K. C. (2015). Amphetamine-induced sensitization and reward uncertainty similarly enhance incentive salience for conditioned cues. Behavioral Neuroscience. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​bne0000064.
go back to reference Toates, F. (1986). Motivational systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Toates, F. (1986). Motivational systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Metagegevens
Titel
Multiple reward–cue contingencies favor expectancy over uncertainty in shaping the reward–cue attentional salience
Auteurs
Matteo De Tommaso
Tommaso Mastropasqua
Massimo Turatto
Publicatiedatum
25-01-2018
Uitgeverij
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in
Psychological Research / Uitgave 2/2019
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-017-0960-9

Andere artikelen Uitgave 2/2019

Psychological Research 2/2019 Naar de uitgave