Neural Mechanisms of Reward-by-Cueing Interactions: ERP Evidence

Electrophysiological evidence of crossmodal correspondence between auditory pitch and visual elevation affecting inhibition of return

Inhibition of return (IOR) has proved to be weakened by audiovisual integration because of the increased perceptual salience of targets. Although other audiovisual interactions, such as crossmodal correspondence, have also been shown to facilitate attentional processes, to the best of our knowledge, no study has investigated the interaction between crossmodal correspondence and IOR. The present study employed Posner's spatial cueing paradigm and manipulated the cue validity, crossmodal correspondence congruency and time interval of auditory and visual stimuli (AV interval) to explore the effect of crossmodal correspondence on the IOR effect. The behavioral results showed a reduced IOR effect under the correspondence congruency condition in contrast to the correspondence incongruency condition at the AV interval of 200 ms, whereas at an AV interval of 80 ms, the decreased IOR effect under crossmodal correspondence congruency was eliminated. The electrophysiological results showed a reduced amplitude difference in P2 between valid and invalid cue conditions when the crossmodal correspondence effect decreased the IOR effect. The present study provided the first evidence of the weakened effect of the crossmodal correspondence effect on the IOR effect, which could be eliminated by audiovisual integration.

Rewards weaken cross-modal inhibition of return with visual targets

Previous studies have shown that rewards weaken visual inhibition of return (IOR). However, the specific mechanisms underlying the influence of rewards on cross-modal IOR remain unclear. Based on the Posner exogenous cue-target paradigm, the present study was conducted to investigate the effect of rewards on exogenous spatial cross-modal IOR in both visual cue with auditory target (VA) and auditory cue with visual target (AV) conditions. The results showed the following: in the AV condition, the IOR effect size in the high-reward condition was significantly lower than that in the low-reward condition. However, in the VA condition, there was no significant IOR in either the high- or low-reward condition and there was no significant difference between the two conditions. In other words, the use of rewards modulated exogenous spatial cross-modal IOR with visual targets; specifically, high rewards may have weakened IOR in the AV condition. Taken together, our study extended the effect of rewards on IOR to cross-modal attention conditions and demonstrated for the first time that higher motivation among individuals under high-reward conditions weakened the cross-modal IOR with visual targets. Moreover, the present study provided evidence for future research on the relationship between reward and attention.

The relationship between self, value-based reward, and emotion prioritisation effects

People show systematic biases in perception, memory, attention, and decision-making to prioritise information related to self, reward, and positive emotion. A long-standing set of experimental findings points towards putative common properties of these effects. However, the relationship between them remains largely unknown. Here, we addressed this question by assessing and linking these prioritisation effects generated by a common associative matching procedure in three experiments. Self, reward, and positive emotion prioritisation effects were assessed using cluster and shift function analyses to explore and test associations between these effects across individuals. Cluster analysis revealed two distinct patterns of the relationship between the biases. Individuals with faster responses showed a smaller reward and linear positive association between reward and emotion biases. Individuals with slower responses demonstrated a large reward and no association between reward and emotion biases. No evidence of the relationship between self and value-based reward or positive emotion prioritisation effects was found among the clusters. A shift function indicated a partial dominance of high-reward over low-reward distributions at later processing stages in participants with slower but not faster responses. Full stochastic dominance of self-relevance over others and positive over neutral emotion was pertinent to each subgroup of participants. Our findings suggest the independent origin of the self-prioritisation effect. In contrast, commonalities in cognitive mechanisms supporting value-based reward and positive emotion processing are subject to individual differences. These findings add important evidence to a steadily growing research base about the relationship between basic behavioural drivers.