neglect? 2) Is the effect of reward long-lasting? Purpose. Method & Results. Effect of Reward ... participants and patients with hemispatial neglect. Psychological ...
0
10
ed .F Right
Pre-Reward Baseline
P
2Kiss,
e
Driver, & Eimer (2009). Reward priority of visual target singletons modulates ERP signatures of attentional selection. Psychological Science, 20, 245-251.
st
Sigurjonsdottir, & Driver, J. (2010). Fortune and reversals of fortune in visual search: Reward contingencies for pop-out targets affect search efficiency and target repetition effects. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 72, 12291236.
Po
3Kristjansson,
Condition
265.
5Snow,
J. (2004). Neuronal representations of cognitive state: reward or attention? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 261-
00
Post
4Maunsell,
J., & Mattingley, J. (2006). Stimulus- and goal-driven biases of selective attention following unilateral brain damage: Implications for rehabilitation of spatial neglect and extinction. Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience, 24, 233–245. 6Geng,
10
ot e Reward
pr
1000
C s.
er
J., & Pessoa, L. (2007). Motivation Sharpens Exogenous Spatial Attention. Emotion, 7, 668-674.
= 1114ms*
3000
00
References
ed
Long-lasting? Yes, sustained!
ct
5000
pr ot
ht
ig
00
10 .F
1Engelmann,
7000
d.
• Might benefit from a reward-based rehabilitation tool.
Effect of training? No. = 2898ms*
te
op
C er s.
st
Po
• Improve their attentional orienting to the left side with reward training, thus reducing neglect (at least in the short-term),
ot Reaction time (ms)
9000
yr
Po
00
10 .F
ec
Top
ht
Reward Post Condition
• Are sensitive to reward structure,
pr
ht
yr ig
op
= 1299ms*
• However, there are carry-over effects for both the left side in the highly rewarded feature condition and for the highly rewarded location condition in both top-down and bottom up orienting.
These findings demonstrate that patients with neglect:
Is there an effect of location reward and is it long lasting?
11000
ec
ht yr ig
• Neither color nor shape, in either top-down or bottom-up orienting, receive a long-lasting benefit of reward.
= 2560ms* (Neglect)
te d
Reaction time (ms)
Right
.C
4000
rs
Reward Post Condition
6000
te
4000
Reaction time (ms)
6000
8000
= 1713ms*
After training (i.e., reward structure removed):
Post
st er
Reward
s.
1500
d.
C
= 1238ms*
10000
C op
3000
Left
Long-lasting? Yes, sustained! Effect of training? Yes!
pr
s.
Po
0
00
4500
3000
Faster RT for left side when color was rewarded and for highly rewarded left side in both bottom- up and top-down.
• C.P. is sensitive to reward manipulation in top-down and bottom-up orienting for both locations and features.
= 2502ms*
5000
--
During reward training:
= 2439ms*
7000
--
Conclusions
Long-lasting? Yes, sustained!
9000
Location
--
Faster RT for bottom-up highly rewarded color and left side.
er
st
Effect of training? Yes!
6000
1000
12000
--
Faster RT for top-down left side when color was the focus of reward.
Right
te
6000
Top
Feature
ot
Top
0
ro t tp ig h
yr op C
1500
Location
Bottom-up Top-down Color Left Shape Left
F1
ec t
op Reaction time (ms)
3000
Condition
ec
8000
What is the consequence of reward for neglect?
er
st
Effect of training? No.
= 3959ms*
00
0
= 3527ms* (Neglect)
Pre-Reward Baseline
Long-lasting? No.
Po
Reaction time (ms)
F1 d.
4500
11000
pr ot
10000
Left
s.
F1 0
= 3858ms* (Neglect)
Location Reward (Left)
ht
Triangle
Is there an effect of color reward and is it long lasting?
ed .
ht p
1500
Pre-Reward Baseline
ct
rs .C
3500
4000
op
00
Reaction time (ms)
6000
Circle
te
Po st e
F1
= 1220ms*
yr ig
Reaction time (ms)
Split by Location
8000
8000
Yes, sustained!
12000
10000
10000
6000
7500
5500
Bottom-up Top-down Color Left Shape Left
Is there an effect of location reward and is it long lasting?
d.
7500
Long-lasting Effects
Feature
Pre-Reward Baseline
= 4347ms* Long-lasting?
Feature Reward (Shape) = 1513ms*
12000
7500
Top-Down Search
4000
• Find shape as determined by color (yellow = circle, blue = triangle). • Target location: 33% at each. • Reward: 85% high (+10) to highly rewarded shape or location. • Response: top or bottom notch.
ht pr o
pr
op yr .C rs
Po
st e
d.
ct e
• Find pop-out color. • Target location: 33% at each. • Reward: 85% high (+10) to highly rewarded color or location. • Response: top or bottom notch.
Location Reward (Left)
Left
Effect of reward? No.
Reward Post Condition
12000
Bottom-up
ig
= 19ms
9500
ig
Po
Task
Right
Reaction time (ms)
4000
No, transient.
2500
Top
What is the consequence of reward for neglect?
ec te
= 837ms* Long-lasting?
3000
1500
Reward Post Condition
2) Is the effect of reward long-lasting?
00
4500
3500
3500
Summary
Effect of Reward
Pre-Reward Baseline
ot
Reaction time (ms)
st
1) Does reward guide attention in patients with neglect?
F1 0
5000
5500
Left
ht
op
C
er s.
Purpose
yr
Red
Effect of reward? Yes!
= 4910ms* (Neglect)
F1
Green
7500
00
2500
Reaction time (ms)
ro t
3000
9500
0
ec 3500
tp
yr ig h
te
Po s
Split by Location
Is there an effect of color reward and is it long lasting?
• What we don’t know is whether neglect precludes sensitivity to reward based attentional guidance.
Reaction time (ms)
4000
• Patients are sensitive to implicit target contingencies in search.6
• 86 Controls • Patient C.P. with severe neglect
yr ig
Po s 4500
= -280ms
Pre-Reward Baseline
• Current treatments are neither effective nor long-lasting.
Participants
Feature Reward (Color)
te
yr
rs .C op
• Neglect is a neurological disorder, characterized by a deficit of attention to the left side, most often accompanied by damage to the right parietal lobe.
Top-down
Bottom-Up Search
5000
Reaction time (ms)
• The mechanism of selection is flexible, accurate, and efficient at incorporating these various influences for the purpose of attentional guidance.
Visuo-spatial Neglect
Method & Results
00 F1
selection.1, 2, 3, 4, 5
d.
• Reward, goals, and motivation affect attentional
Leslie Drummond & Sarah Shomstein George Washington University
0
ig ht pr ot ec t Introduction
te
r
te rs
ed .F
yr ig h
Reward-based Influences on Attentional Orienting in Patients with Visuo-spatial Neglect
J., & Behrmann, M. (2002). Probability cueing of target location facilitates visual search implicitly in normal participants and patients with hemispatial neglect. Psychological Science, 13(6), 520-525.
