Nathalie Liegel, Daniel Schneider, Edmund Wascher, Laura-Isabelle Klatt, Stefan Arnau
{"title":"The effect of performance contingent reward prospects flexibly adapts to more versus less specific task goals.","authors":"Nathalie Liegel, Daniel Schneider, Edmund Wascher, Laura-Isabelle Klatt, Stefan Arnau","doi":"10.1111/psyp.14678","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In some situations, for example, when we expect to gain a reward in case of good performance, goal-driven top-down attention is particularly strong. Little is known about the task specificity of such increases of top-down attention due to environmental factors. To understand to what extent performance-contingent reward prospects can result in specific and unspecific changes in cognitive processing, we here investigate reward effects under different levels of task specification. Thirty-two participants performed a visual or an auditory discrimination task cued by two consecutive visual stimuli: First, a reward cue indicated if good performance was rewarded. Second, a task cue announced either which of the two tasks would follow (precise cue) or that both tasks would follow equally likely (imprecise cue). Reward and task cue preciseness both significantly improved performance. Moreover, the response time difference between precisely and imprecisely cued trials was significantly stronger in rewarded than in unrewarded trials. These effects were reflected in event-related potential (ERP) slow wave amplitudes: Reward and preciseness both significantly enhanced the contingent negative variation (CNV) prior to the task stimulus. In an early CNV time interval, both factors also showed an interaction. A negative slow wave prior to the task cue was also significantly enhanced for rewarded trials. This effect correlated with the reward difference in response times. These results indicate that reward prospects trigger task-specific changes in preparatory top-down attention which can flexibly adapt over time and across different task requirements. This highlights that a reward-induced increase of cognitive control can occur on different specificity levels.</p>","PeriodicalId":20913,"journal":{"name":"Psychophysiology","volume":" ","pages":"e14678"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11579227/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychophysiology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.14678","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
In some situations, for example, when we expect to gain a reward in case of good performance, goal-driven top-down attention is particularly strong. Little is known about the task specificity of such increases of top-down attention due to environmental factors. To understand to what extent performance-contingent reward prospects can result in specific and unspecific changes in cognitive processing, we here investigate reward effects under different levels of task specification. Thirty-two participants performed a visual or an auditory discrimination task cued by two consecutive visual stimuli: First, a reward cue indicated if good performance was rewarded. Second, a task cue announced either which of the two tasks would follow (precise cue) or that both tasks would follow equally likely (imprecise cue). Reward and task cue preciseness both significantly improved performance. Moreover, the response time difference between precisely and imprecisely cued trials was significantly stronger in rewarded than in unrewarded trials. These effects were reflected in event-related potential (ERP) slow wave amplitudes: Reward and preciseness both significantly enhanced the contingent negative variation (CNV) prior to the task stimulus. In an early CNV time interval, both factors also showed an interaction. A negative slow wave prior to the task cue was also significantly enhanced for rewarded trials. This effect correlated with the reward difference in response times. These results indicate that reward prospects trigger task-specific changes in preparatory top-down attention which can flexibly adapt over time and across different task requirements. This highlights that a reward-induced increase of cognitive control can occur on different specificity levels.
期刊介绍:
Founded in 1964, Psychophysiology is the most established journal in the world specifically dedicated to the dissemination of psychophysiological science. The journal continues to play a key role in advancing human neuroscience in its many forms and methodologies (including central and peripheral measures), covering research on the interrelationships between the physiological and psychological aspects of brain and behavior. Typically, studies published in Psychophysiology include psychological independent variables and noninvasive physiological dependent variables (hemodynamic, optical, and electromagnetic brain imaging and/or peripheral measures such as respiratory sinus arrhythmia, electromyography, pupillography, and many others). The majority of studies published in the journal involve human participants, but work using animal models of such phenomena is occasionally published. Psychophysiology welcomes submissions on new theoretical, empirical, and methodological advances in: cognitive, affective, clinical and social neuroscience, psychopathology and psychiatry, health science and behavioral medicine, and biomedical engineering. The journal publishes theoretical papers, evaluative reviews of literature, empirical papers, and methodological papers, with submissions welcome from scientists in any fields mentioned above.