About: Incentive value and spatial certainty combine additively to determine visual priorities

Not logged in : Login

(Sponging disallowed)

Facets (new session)
Description
Metadata
Settings
- Rule:
- Inverse Functional Properties:
- "Same As":

About: Incentive value and spatial certainty combine additively to determine visual priorities Goto Sponge Distinct Permalink

An Entity of Type : bibo:AcademicArticle, within Data Space : linkeddata.uriburner.com:28898 associated with source document(s)

Attributes	Values
type	http://eprints.org/ontology/ArticleEPrint http://eprints.org/ontology/ArticleEPrint http://eprints.org/ontology/EPrint http://eprints.org/ontology/EPrint Article Article Academic Article Academic Article
seeAlso	HTML Summary of #83566 Incentive value and spatial certainty combine additively to determine visual priorities HTML Summary of #83566 Incentive value and spatial certainty combine additively to determine visual priorities
sameAs	Incentive value and spatial certainty combine additively to determine visual priorities Incentive value and spatial certainty combine additively to determine visual priorities
http://eprints.org/ontology/hasDocument	Incentive value and spatial certainty combine additively to determine visual priorities (PDF) Incentive value and spatial certainty combine additively to determine visual priorities (PDF) Incentive value and spatial certainty combine additively to determine visual priorities (Other) Incentive value and spatial certainty combine additively to determine visual priorities (Other) Incentive value and spatial certainty combine additively to determine visual priorities (Other) Incentive value and spatial certainty combine additively to determine visual priorities (Other) Incentive value and spatial certainty combine additively to determine visual priorities (Other) Incentive value and spatial certainty combine additively to determine visual priorities (Other) Incentive value and spatial certainty combine additively to determine visual priorities (Other) Incentive value and spatial certainty combine additively to determine visual priorities (Other) Incentive value and spatial certainty combine additively to determine visual priorities (Other) Incentive value and spatial certainty combine additively to determine visual priorities (Other)
http://eprints.org/ontology/hasPublished	Incentive value and spatial certainty combine additively to determine visual priorities (PDF) Incentive value and spatial certainty combine additively to determine visual priorities (PDF)
dc:hasVersion	Incentive value and spatial certainty combine additively to determine visual priorities (PDF) Incentive value and spatial certainty combine additively to determine visual priorities (PDF)
Title	Incentive value and spatial certainty combine additively to determine visual priorities Incentive value and spatial certainty combine additively to determine visual priorities
described by	https://demo.openlinksw.com/about/id/entity/https/www.cs.kent.ac.uk/people/staff/akj22/materials/CO644/export_kar_RDFN3.n3 https://demo.openlinksw.com/about/id/entity/https/raw.githubusercontent.com/annajordanous/CO644Files/main/export_kar_RDFN3.n3
Date	2020-10-09 2020-10-09
Creator	Jane Raymond Jane Raymond Kelly Garner Kelly Garner Howard Bowman Howard Bowman
status	peer reviewed peer reviewed published published
Publisher	Springer Springer
abstract	How does the brain combine information predictive of the value of a visually guided task (incentive value) with information predictive of where task-relevant stimuli may occur (spatial certainty)? Human behavioural evidence indicates that these two predictions may be combined additively to bias visual selection (Additive Hypothesis), whereas neuroeconomic studies posit that they may be multiplicatively combined (Expected Value Hypothesis). We sought to adjudicate between these two alternatives. Participants viewed two coloured placeholders that specified the potential value of correctly identifying an imminent letter target if it appeared in that placeholder. Then, prior to the target’s presentation, an endogenous spatial cue was presented indicating the target’s more likely location. Spatial cues were parametricallymanipulated with regard to the information gained (in bits). Across two experiments, performance was better for targets appearing in high versus low value placeholders and better when targets appeared in validly cued locations. Interestingly, as shown with a Bayesian model selection approach, these effects did not interact, clearly supporting the Additive Hypothesis. Even when conditions were adjusted to increase the optimality of a multiplicative operation, support for it remained. These findings refute recent theories that expected value computations are the singular mechanism driving the deployment of endogenous spatial attention. Instead, incentive value and spatial certainty seem to act independently to influence visual selection. How does the brain combine information predictive of the value of a visually guided task (incentive value) with information predictive of where task-relevant stimuli may occur (spatial certainty)? Human behavioural evidence indicates that these two predictions may be combined additively to bias visual selection (Additive Hypothesis), whereas neuroeconomic studies posit that they may be multiplicatively combined (Expected Value Hypothesis). We sought to adjudicate between these two alternatives. Participants viewed two coloured placeholders that specified the potential value of correctly identifying an imminent letter target if it appeared in that placeholder. Then, prior to the target’s presentation, an endogenous spatial cue was presented indicating the target’s more likely location. Spatial cues were parametricallymanipulated with regard to the information gained (in bits). Across two experiments, performance was better for targets appearing in high versus low value placeholders and better when targets appeared in validly cued locations. Interestingly, as shown with a Bayesian model selection approach, these effects did not interact, clearly supporting the Additive Hypothesis. Even when conditions were adjusted to increase the optimality of a multiplicative operation, support for it remained. These findings refute recent theories that expected value computations are the singular mechanism driving the deployment of endogenous spatial attention. Instead, incentive value and spatial certainty seem to act independently to influence visual selection.
Is Part Of	Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics https://kar.kent.ac.uk/id/repository https://kar.kent.ac.uk/id/repository
Subject	BF Psychology BF Psychology RC321 Neuroscience. Biological psychiatry. Neuropsychiatry RC321 Neuroscience. Biological psychiatry. Neuropsychiatry
list of authors	https://kar.kent.ac.uk/id/eprint/83566#authors https://kar.kent.ac.uk/id/eprint/83566#authors
is topic of	https://www.cs.kent.ac.uk/people/staff/akj22/materials/CO644/export_kar_RDFN3.n3 https://raw.githubusercontent.com/annajordanous/CO644Files/main/export_kar_RDFN3.n3
is primary topic of	HTML Summary of #83566 Incentive value and spatial certainty combine additively to determine visual priorities HTML Summary of #83566 Incentive value and spatial certainty combine additively to determine visual priorities

Faceted Search & Find service v1.17_git144 as of Jul 26 2024

Alternative Linked Data Documents: iSPARQL | ODE Content Formats:

RDF

ODATA

Microdata

About

OpenLink Virtuoso version 08.03.3331 as of Aug 25 2024, on Linux (x86_64-ubuntu_noble-linux-glibc2.38-64), Single-Server Edition (378 GB total memory, 37 GB memory in use)
Data on this page belongs to its respective rights holders.
Virtuoso Faceted Browser Copyright © 2009-2024 OpenLink Software