↓ Skip to main content

Monetary reward speeds up voluntary saccades

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience, June 2014
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 (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
patent
1 patent
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
50 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
Monetary reward speeds up voluntary saccades
Published in
Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience, June 2014
DOI 10.3389/fnint.2014.00048
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lewis L. Chen, Y. Mark Chen, Wu Zhou, William D. Mustain

Abstract

Past studies have shown that reward contingency is critical for sensorimotor learning, and reward expectation speeds up saccades in animals. Whether monetary reward speeds up saccades in human remains unknown. Here we addressed this issue by employing a conditional saccade task, in which human subjects performed a series of non-reflexive, visually-guided horizontal saccades. The subjects were (or were not) financially compensated for making a saccade in response to a centrally-displayed visual congruent (or incongruent) stimulus. Reward modulation of saccadic velocities was quantified independently of the amplitude-velocity coupling. We found that reward expectation significantly sped up voluntary saccades up to 30°/s, and the reward modulation was consistent across tests. These findings suggest that monetary reward speeds up saccades in human in a fashion analogous to how juice reward sped up saccades in monkeys. We further noticed that the idiosyncratic nasal-temporal velocity asymmetry was highly consistent regardless of test order, and its magnitude was not correlated with the magnitude of reward modulation. This suggests that reward modulation and the intrinsic velocity asymmetry may be governed by separate mechanisms that regulate saccade generation.

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 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Netherlands 1 2%
Germany 1 2%
France 1 2%
Unknown 46 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 32%
Researcher 9 18%
Student > Master 8 16%
Student > Bachelor 6 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 4 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 21 42%
Neuroscience 12 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 8%
Philosophy 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 5 10%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 28 February 2023.
All research outputs
#6,244,790
of 23,445,423 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience
#267
of 869 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,076
of 229,860 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience
#8
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,445,423 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 869 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 229,860 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 21 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 61% of its contemporaries.