![Sample our Behavioral Sciences journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110801/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Behavioral-Sciences.jpg"})
Abstract
When attending for impending visual stimuli, cognitive systems prepare to identify relevant information while ignoring irrelevant, potentially distracting input. Recent work showed that a supramodal distracter-filtering mechanism is invoked in blocked designs involving expectation of possible distracter stimuli, although this entails a cost (distraction-filtering cost) on speeded performance when distracters are expected but not presented. Here we used an arrow-flanker task to study whether an analogous cost, potentially reflecting the recruitment of a specific distraction-filtering mechanism, occurs dynamically when potential distraction is cued trial-to-trial (cued distracter-expectation cost). In order to promote the maximal utilization of cue information by participants, in some experimental conditions the cue also signalled the possibility of earning a monetary reward for fast and accurate performance. This design also allowed us to investigate the interplay between anticipation for distracters and anticipation of reward, which is known to engender attentional preparation. Only in reward contexts did participants show a cued distracter-expectation cost, which was larger with higher reward prospect and when anticipation for both distracters and reward were manipulated trial-to-trial. Thus, these results indicate that reward prospect interacts with the distracter expectation during trial-by-trial preparatory processes for potential distraction. These findings highlight how reward guides cue-driven attentional preparation.
We thank Brittany Zulkiewicz, Zaynah Alam, Frank Lee, and Christine Tina Wei for their helpful assistance with data collection. We also thank two anonymous reviewers for suggesting several possible alternative interpretations of our results that we present in the Discussion.
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
This work was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health [grant number R01-MH060415], [grant number R01-NS051048] to M.G.W.
We thank Brittany Zulkiewicz, Zaynah Alam, Frank Lee, and Christine Tina Wei for their helpful assistance with data collection. We also thank two anonymous reviewers for suggesting several possible alternative interpretations of our results that we present in the Discussion.
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
This work was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health [grant number R01-MH060415], [grant number R01-NS051048] to M.G.W.
Notes
1 We are grateful to Professor Mauro Marini for the mathematical formulation of the equation of this function.
2 In the RT data, this Reward by Cue-distraction interaction was not significant [F(1,15) = 2.59, p = .12].