Date created: | Last Updated:

Category: Project

Description: Overall, a few previous studies have assessed the interaction between reward and prevalence on the allocation of attention. The aim of the proposed series of experiments is to test the interaction of these two effects and investigate whether increasing the reward value assigned to a low prevalent target, can increase its detectability. Moreover, in the proposed series of experiments, the effects of prioritisation on object-based, rather than spatial-based, attention will be investigated in a static Multiple Target Search (MTS) task with real-life stimuli. In the first experiment of this series, evidence in favour of the prevalence effect in the current modified MTS task was found, indicated by the quicker and more accurate detection of high versus low prevalent targets. In the second experiment of this series, evidence supporting the effect of reward on target detection has been found, indicated by the quicker and more accurate detection of high versus low rewarded targets. In the third experiment of this series, we aimed to investigate whether reward can be used to control and even reverse the prevalence effect. However, no evidence of reward modulating prevalence effect was found, with results resembling closely those of Experiment 1, regarding the presence of the prevalence effect yet, higher response speed (i.e. lower reaction times) and miss error rates were observed. Experiment 3 however, methodologically differed from Experiment 1 due to the presence of a temporal deadline and the presence of a reward which varied with prevalence. Therefore, the increases in response speed and miss errors in Experiment 3 can be a result of one or both of these factors. We are specifically interested in the effect of variable reward, as a way of counteracting the effect of prevalence. In the current experiment a constant reward will be associated with all targets, as opposed to Experiment 3, where a larger reward was associated with low prevalent targets and a lower reward was associated with high prevalent targets. So Experiment 4 is designed as an attempt to equate for the presence of a temporal deadline and the presence of a reward, which is expected to make the overall response speed and miss rate similar to that of Experiment 3, allowing for a cleaner assessment of the effect of the variable reward.