↓ Skip to main content

Random reward priming is task-contingent: the robustness of the 1-trial reward priming effect

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, April 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 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
Random reward priming is task-contingent: the robustness of the 1-trial reward priming effect
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, April 2014
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00309
Pubmed ID
Authors

Árni G. Ásgeirsson, Árni Kristjánsson

Abstract

Consistent financial reward of particular features influences the allocation of visual attention in many ways. More surprising are 1-trial reward priming effects on attention where reward schedules are random and reward on one trial influences attentional allocation on the next. Those findings are thought to reflect that rewarded features become more salient than unrewarded ones on the subsequent trial. Here we attempt to conceptually replicate this effect, testing its generalizability. In three versions of an analogous paradigm to the additional singleton paradigm involving singleton search for a Gabor patch of odd spatial frequency we found no evidence of reward priming, while we only partially replicate the reward priming in the exact original paradigm tested by Hickey and colleagues. The results cast doubt on the proposal that random reward enhances salience, suggested in the original papers, and highlight the need for a more nuanced account. In many other paradigms reward effects have been found to progress gradually, becoming stronger as they build up, and we argue that for robust reward priming, reward schedules need to be more consistent than in the original 1-trial reward priming paradigm.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 6%
Italy 1 3%
Unknown 32 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 20%
Student > Bachelor 5 14%
Researcher 5 14%
Student > Master 5 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 11%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 4 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 18 51%
Neuroscience 6 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 8 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 10 April 2014.
All research outputs
#18,367,612
of 22,749,166 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#21,997
of 29,632 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#165,344
of 228,156 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#231
of 281 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,749,166 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,632 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 228,156 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 281 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.