On the value-dependence of value-driven attentional capture

Abstract

Findings from an increasingly large number of studies have been used to argue that attentional capture can be dependent on the learned value of a stimulus, or value-driven. However, under certain circumstances attention can be biased to select stimuli that previously served as targets, independent of reward history. Value-driven attentional capture, as studied using the training phase-test phase design introduced by Anderson and colleagues, is widely presumed to reflect the combined influence of learned value and selection history. However, the degree to which attentional capture is at all dependent on value learning in this paradigm has recently been questioned. Support for value-dependence can be provided through one of two means: (1) greater attentional capture by prior targets following rewarded training than following unrewarded training, and (2) greater attentional capture by prior targets previously associated with high compared to low value. Using a variant of the original value-driven attentional capture paradigm, Sha and Jiang (Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 78, 403-414, 2016) failed to find evidence of either, and raised criticisms regarding the adequacy of evidence provided by prior studies using this particular paradigm. To address this disparity, here we provided a stringent test of the value-dependence hypothesis using the traditional value-driven attentional capture paradigm. With a sufficiently large sample size, value-dependence was observed based on both criteria, with no evidence of attentional capture without rewards during training. Our findings support the validity of the traditional value-driven attentional capture paradigm in measuring what its name purports to measure.

Keywords: Attentional capture; Reward learning; Selection history; Selective attention.

Figure 1

Sequence of events for a trial. (A) Example trial for the training phase of Experiment 1. Participants search for a target that is equally-often red or green, and report the orientation of the bar within the target with a button press. Correct responses are followed by feedback in which a small amount of money is added to a running bank total that participants are paid at the end of the experiment. One color target is more likely to yield a high reward (80% high, 20% low) than the other (20% high, 80% low). (B) Example trial for the test phase of Experiment 1 and 2a. Participants now search for a shape singleton target (diamond among circles or circle among diamonds), and the color of the shapes is irrelevant to the task. No monetary rewards are available. On a subset of trials, one of the non-targets (distractor) is rendered in the color of a former target. (C) Example trial for the training phase of Experiment 2a and 2b. Participants search for a color-defined target, and no monetary rewards are provided. (D) Example trial for the test phase of Experiment 2b. Participants search for a different color-defined target (red if they previously searched for green and vice versa). On a subset of trials, one of the non-targets (distractor) is rendered in the prior target color from training.

Figure 2

Response time by distractor condition in the test phase of the three experiments. Error bars reflect the standard error of the mean. *p<.05 **p<.01.

Figure 3

Response time by distractor condition in the original data from Anderson et al. (2011b), combining across Experiments 1 and 3. Error bars reflect the standard error of the mean. *p<.05 **p<.01.