↓ Skip to main content

Irrelevant reward and selection histories have different influences on task-relevant attentional selection

Overview of attention for article published in Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

peer_reviews
1 peer review site

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
69 Mendeley
Title
Irrelevant reward and selection histories have different influences on task-relevant attentional selection
Published in
Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, March 2015
DOI 10.3758/s13414-015-0851-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mary H. MacLean, Barry Giesbrecht

Abstract

Task-relevant and physically salient features influence visual selective attention. In the present study, we investigated the influence of task-irrelevant and physically nonsalient reward-associated features on visual selective attention. Two hypotheses were tested: One predicts that the effects of target-defining task-relevant and task-irrelevant features interact to modulate visual selection; the other predicts that visual selection is determined by the independent combination of relevant and irrelevant feature effects. These alternatives were tested using a visual search task that contained multiple targets, placing a high demand on the need for selectivity, and that was data-limited and required unspeeded responses, emphasizing early perceptual selection processes. One week prior to the visual search task, participants completed a training task in which they learned to associate particular colors with a specific reward value. In the search task, the reward-associated colors were presented surrounding targets and distractors, but were neither physically salient nor task-relevant. In two experiments, the irrelevant reward-associated features influenced performance, but only when they were presented in a task-relevant location. The costs induced by the irrelevant reward-associated features were greater when they oriented attention to a target than to a distractor. In a third experiment, we examined the effects of selection history in the absence of reward history and found that the interaction between task relevance and selection history differed, relative to when the features had previously been associated with reward. The results indicate that under conditions that demand highly efficient perceptual selection, physically nonsalient task-irrelevant and task-relevant factors interact to influence visual selective attention.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 3%
Netherlands 1 1%
Unknown 66 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 30%
Researcher 13 19%
Student > Bachelor 9 13%
Student > Master 6 9%
Student > Postgraduate 5 7%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 8 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 31 45%
Neuroscience 10 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 1%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 16 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 September 2016.
All research outputs
#16,287,458
of 24,003,070 outputs
Outputs from Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics
#848
of 1,773 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#161,052
of 266,820 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics
#41
of 77 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,003,070 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,773 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 266,820 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 77 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.