Separating value from selection frequency in rapid reaching biases to visual targets

Stimuli associated with positive rewards in one task often receive preferential processing in a subsequent task, even when those associations are no longer relevant. Here we use a rapid reaching task to investigate these biases. In Experiment 1 we first replicated the learning procedure of Raymond and O'Brien (2009), for a set of arbitrary shapes that varied in value (positive, negative) and probability (20%, 80%). In a subsequent task, participants rapidly reached toward one of two shapes, except now the previously learned associations were irrelevant. As in the previous studies, we found significant reach biases toward shapes previously associated with a high probable, positive outcome. Unexpectedly, we also found a bias toward shapes previously associated with a low probable, negative outcome. Closer inspection of the learning task revealed a potential second factor that might account for these results; since a low probable negative shape was always paired with a high probable negative shape, it was selected with disproportionate frequency. To assess how selection frequency and reward value might both contribute to reaching biases we performed a second experiment. The results of this experiment at a group level replicated the reach-bias toward positively rewarding stimuli, but also revealed a separate bias toward stimuli that had been more frequently selected. At the level of individual participants, we observed a variety of preference profiles, with some participants biased primarily by reward value, others by frequency, and a few actually biased away from both highly rewarding and high frequency targets. These findings highlight that: (1) rapid reaching provides a sensitive readout of preferential processing; (2) target reward value and target selection frequency are separate sources of bias; and (3) group-level analyses in complex decision-making tasks can obscure important and varied individual differences in preference profiles.

[1]  D. Wolpert,et al.  Changing your mind: a computational mechanism of vacillation , 2009, Nature.

[2]  Jane E Raymond,et al.  Learned Predictiveness Speeds Visual Processing , 2012, Psychological science.

[3]  Denis O'Hora,et al.  Local dynamics in decision making: The evolution of preference within and across decisions , 2013, Scientific Reports.

[4]  H. Deubel,et al.  Attentional landscapes in reaching and grasping , 2010, Vision Research.

[5]  Michael S Landy,et al.  Motor control is decision-making , 2012, Current Opinion in Neurobiology.

[6]  B. Anderson A value-driven mechanism of attentional selection. , 2013, Journal of vision.

[7]  Denis G. Pelli,et al.  ECVP '07 Abstracts , 2007, Perception.

[8]  Craig S. Chapman,et al.  One to Four, and Nothing More , 2011, Psychological science.

[9]  P. Cisek Making decisions through a distributed consensus , 2012, Current Opinion in Neurobiology.

[10]  W. Zoest,et al.  Reward creates oculomotor salience , 2012, Current Biology.

[11]  Jody C Culham,et al.  Connecting the Dots , 2013, Psychological science.

[12]  Jody C Culham,et al.  Visual salience dominates early visuomotor competition in reaching behavior. , 2011, Journal of vision.

[13]  J. Raymond,et al.  Value associations of irrelevant stimuli modify rapid visual orienting , 2010, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[14]  Jason P. Gallivan,et al.  Three-dimensional reach trajectories as a probe of real-time decision-making between multiple competing targets , 2014, Front. Neurosci..

[15]  Jan Theeuwes,et al.  What is top-down about contingent capture? , 2010, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[16]  K. Nakayama,et al.  Hidden cognitive states revealed in choice reaching tasks , 2009, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[17]  Daniel Ansari,et al.  Counting on the motor system: rapid action planning reveals the format- and magnitude-dependent extraction of numerical quantity. , 2014, Journal of vision.

[18]  D G Pelli,et al.  The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: transforming numbers into movies. , 1997, Spatial vision.

[19]  U. Hahn,et al.  Perceptuo-motor, cognitive, and description-based decision-making seem equally good , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[20]  J. Kalaska,et al.  Neural mechanisms for interacting with a world full of action choices. , 2010, Annual review of neuroscience.

[21]  D H Brainard,et al.  The Psychophysics Toolbox. , 1997, Spatial vision.

[22]  Michael J. Spivey,et al.  Action Dynamics Reveal Parallel Competition in Decision Making , 2008, Psychological science.

[23]  M. Goldberg,et al.  Attention, intention, and priority in the parietal lobe. , 2010, Annual review of neuroscience.

[24]  M. Landy,et al.  Movement planning with probabilistic target information. , 2007, Journal of neurophysiology.

[25]  Michael J. Spivey,et al.  Continuous Dynamics in Real-Time Cognition , 2006 .

[26]  Craig S. Chapman,et al.  Short-term motor plasticity revealed in a visuomotor decision-making task , 2010, Behavioural Brain Research.

[27]  Thomas A. Farmer,et al.  Hand in Motion Reveals Mind in Motion , 2011, Front. Psychology.

[28]  Craig S. Chapman,et al.  Reaching for the unknown: Multiple target encoding and real-time decision-making in a rapid reach task , 2010, Cognition.

[29]  J. Theeuwes,et al.  Reward grabs the eye: Oculomotor capture by rewarding stimuli , 2012, Vision Research.

[30]  Patryk A. Laurent,et al.  Value-driven attentional capture , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[31]  J. Theeuwes,et al.  Top-down versus bottom-up attentional control: a failed theoretical dichotomy , 2012, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[32]  J. Raymond,et al.  Value Learning Modulates goal-Directed Actions , 2014, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[33]  J. Gottlieb Attention, Learning, and the Value of Information , 2012, Neuron.

[34]  J. Raymond,et al.  Selective Visual Attention and Motivation , 2009, Psychological science.

[35]  L. Chelazzi,et al.  Rewards teach visual selective attention , 2013, Vision Research.

[36]  Jillian H. Fecteau,et al.  Salience, relevance, and firing: a priority map for target selection , 2006, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[37]  Jan Theeuwes,et al.  On the limits of top-down control of visual selection , 2011, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[38]  G. Campana,et al.  Where perception meets memory: A review of repetition priming in visual search tasks , 2010, Attention, perception & psychophysics.