↓ Skip to main content

When unconscious rewards boost cognitive task performance inefficiently: the role of consciousness in integrating value and attainability information

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
googleplus
2 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
89 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
When unconscious rewards boost cognitive task performance inefficiently: the role of consciousness in integrating value and attainability information
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2012.00219
Pubmed ID
Authors

Claire M Zedelius, Harm Veling, Henk Aarts

Abstract

Research has shown that high vs. low value rewards improve cognitive task performance independent of whether they are perceived consciously or unconsciously. However, efficient performance in response to high value rewards also depends on whether or not rewards are attainable. This raises the question of whether unconscious reward processing enables people to take into account such attainability information. Building on a theoretical framework according to which conscious reward processing is required to enable higher level cognitive processing, the present research tested the hypothesis that conscious but not unconscious reward processing enables integration of reward value with attainability information. In two behavioral experiments, participants were exposed to mask high and low value coins serving as rewards on a working memory (WM) task. The likelihood for conscious processing was manipulated by presenting the coins relatively briefly (17 ms) or long and clearly visible (300 ms). Crucially, rewards were expected to be attainable or unattainable. Requirements to integrate reward value with attainability information varied across experiments. Results showed that when integration of value and attainability was required (Experiment 1), long reward presentation led to efficient performance, i.e., selectively improved performance for high value attainable rewards. In contrast, in the short presentation condition, performance was increased for high value rewards even when these were unattainable. This difference between the effects of long and short presentation time disappeared when integration of value and attainability information was not required (Experiment 2). Together these findings suggest that unconsciously processed reward information is not integrated with attainability expectancies, causing inefficient effort investment. These findings are discussed in terms of a unique role of consciousness in efficient allocation of effort to cognitive control processes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Switzerland 1 1%
France 1 1%
Australia 1 1%
Argentina 1 1%
Spain 1 1%
Unknown 84 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 25%
Researcher 16 18%
Student > Master 10 11%
Student > Postgraduate 7 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 7 8%
Other 18 20%
Unknown 9 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 41 46%
Neuroscience 6 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 3%
Other 13 15%
Unknown 18 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 31 October 2015.
All research outputs
#6,707,365
of 22,711,645 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#2,793
of 7,128 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#62,391
of 244,155 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#130
of 294 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,711,645 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,128 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its peers.
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 244,155 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 294 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.