积极情绪促进对积极刺激注意偏向：投入与抽离

一系列研究结果被认为反映了积极情绪促进投入注意至积极刺激的偏向。然而,由于所使用的范式不能分离对积极刺激的注意投入偏向和抽离偏向,这些研究结果也可能反映了积极情绪促进从积极刺激抽离注意更少的偏向。本研究采用音乐聆听和事件回忆唤起被试的积极或中性情绪,随后要求被试完成点探测范式的变式任务,通过中性-中性条件与一致条件的反应时之差测量投入偏向,以及不一致条件与中性-中性条件的反应时之差测量抽离偏向,探讨积极情绪究竟促进投入偏向,还是促进抽离偏向。结果表明：（1）相比中性组,积极情绪组并没有表现出更大的中性-中性条件和一致条件的反应时之差。这说明,积极情绪没有促进投入注意至积极刺激的偏向;（2）相比中性情绪组,积极情绪组的不一致条件与中性-中性条件的反应时之差更大。这说明,积极情绪促进从积极刺激抽离注意更少的偏向。由此,积极情绪并不促进投入注意至积极刺激的偏向,而是促进对积极刺激的抽离偏向。     

无关工作记忆表征的负性情绪信息能否捕获视觉注意?一项眼动研究

研究通过分析视觉搜索任务的首次注视点和行为反应时, 探讨无关工作记忆表征的负性情绪信息对视觉注意选择的影响。实验1发现在反映早期注意选择的首次注视点百分率指标上, 不管工作记忆表征的情绪效价如何, 均出现了显著的注意捕获效应; 实验2发现当采用中性情绪靶子刺激时, 首次注视点百分率指标上仍表现出了稳健的注意捕获效应; 在首次注视点持续时间指标上, 实验1和实验2均发现记忆匹配条件的干扰刺激显著小于控制条件的干扰刺激, 表现出注意的快速脱离; 而在行为反应时指标上, 早期的注意捕获效应消失(实验1), 甚至被反转为注意抑制效应(实验2)。这些结果表明在早期注意选择阶段, 记忆驱动的注意捕获效应不受工作记忆表征情绪效价的影响, 但认知控制会在早期注意捕获之后促使注意快速脱离记忆匹配的干扰刺激, 其作用效果受靶子刺激情绪效价的调节。     

情绪诱发视盲任务中的情绪注意控制机制：来自脑电ERP和时频分析的证据

采用脑电时频分析技术,对情绪诱发视盲任务中的情绪控制机制进行了分析。实验设置负性图片、中性图片及填充图片三种干扰刺激条件,关注被试正确完成目标识别时的干扰刺激加工过程。实验结果发现,负性与中性干扰刺激在注意加工阶段均较控制性的填充图片条件诱发前额中央分布的theta同步化效应,而且负性刺激所诱发的此效应又较中性情绪刺激更多分布在左侧前额和颞枕部。实验结果表明：（1）情绪诱发视盲任务下被试确实存在对于情绪干扰刺激的自上而下控制;（2）相比中性干扰刺激,负性干扰刺激在EIB中的情绪注意控制机制不仅包括前人所发现的后部颞枕区对刺激识别的注意控制,而且包括前额叶参与下的负性情绪控制。     

特征和位置信息在价值驱动注意捕获中的作用

本研究采用训练−测试范式考察颜色和位置信息在价值驱动注意捕获中的作用。实验1考察是否存在基于具体位置的价值驱动的注意捕获效应。在训练阶段, 被试对8个位置中两个位置出现的红色目标反应伴随着高奖励反馈, 而对另外两个位置出现的红色目标反应伴随着低奖励反馈, 其它4个位置为中性位置, 没有目标出现。在测试阶段, 一半试次中红色刺激作为分心物出现。结果发现, 只有当分心刺激出现在高奖励位置和两个高奖励位置之间的中性位置时才能够捕获注意; 实验2考察颜色和位置信息在价值驱动注意捕获中的交互作用。在训练阶段, 将颜色特征和位置信息联合起来进行学习。在测试阶段, 和高、低奖励相联结的颜色刺激各在1/3试次中作为分心物出现。结果发现, 只有当高奖励颜色出现在高奖励位置或出现在高奖励位置之间的中性位置时才能够捕获注意。研究结果表明：(1)位置联结的价值驱动的注意捕获效应能够泛化到特定邻近位置上; (2)个体在训练阶段将颜色和位置的联合特征与奖励建立联结, 训练阶段建立的联结不能泛化到部分特征上。价值驱动注意捕获效应的泛化具有选择性。     

老年人阈下情绪对其认知偏向和认知效率影响之比较

为了比较研究老年人的情绪对其认知效率和偏向的影响,随机选取25名正常老年人完成两项实验。一个为情绪STROOP实验,记录被试命名阈下呈现情绪图片（积极、消极和中性表情的人脸图片）后的颜色块的反应时;一个为情绪启动实验,同样呈现情绪图片后紧跟的是人的后脑勺图片,记录被试对后脑勺图片人物的表情猜测。结果发现,相对于中性情绪图片条件,老年人将跟在哭表情图片后的人物更多的猜测为哭;但是只有男性老年人的认知反应时因情绪图片条件而异：消极情绪图片延迟反应,积极情绪图片促进反应。     

情绪场景图片的注意偏向：眼动研究

注意实验中,与不带情绪色彩的刺激相比,具有情绪意义的刺激可引起注意偏向。本研究以情绪场景图片为材料,通过眼动技术分别记录被试在反向眼跳任务和Go/No-go任务中的眼动数据,考察了情绪图片的注意偏向。结果发现：反向眼跳任务中,对情绪图片的眼跳潜伏期比中性图片更长,眼跳错误率也更高;在Go任务中,相对于呈现在中央的中性图片,情绪图片引起的对靶子的眼跳潜伏期更长;在No-go任务中,相对于呈现在中央的中性图片,情绪图片引起的眼跳错误率更低。实验结果说明,情绪图片可引起注意偏向,表现为更快的捕获注意并且注意更难从情绪图片上转移。     

刺激类型及表征关系对无意视盲的影响

通过考察刺激类型以及重叠呈现的图片流和词语流的表征关系对非注意刺激的捕获差异,试图考察刺激类型和表征关系对无意视盲（Inattentional Blindness）的影响。分别有20名中学生参加了词和图片基线水平测试,52名中学生参与了无意视盲实验。研究结果表明：（1）当词与图片重叠呈现时,不管注意刺激是词还是图片,也不管词与图片的表征是否一致,与基线水平相比,被试都出现了显著的无意视盲现象。（2）当词与图片的表征意义一致时,如果注意刺激是图片,而非注意刺激是词,那么被试更容易觉察到非注意刺激。（3）非注意刺激与注意刺激表征意义一致时更容易捕获观察者的注意     

高中生的亲子沟通质量对情绪性刺激注意偏向的影响

为了探讨高中生亲子沟通质量对情绪性刺激注意偏向的影响,实验一采用亲子沟通量表,筛选出亲子沟通高分组和低分组,两组被试参加点探测任务,要求被试迅速判断情绪性图片出现后呈现的圆点的位置。实验为2（组别：高亲子沟通组、低亲子沟通组）×2（情绪类型：负性和正性）×2（探测点位置一致性：一致、不一致）的混合实验设计。结果发现,负性和正性刺激的不一致条件反应时均显著短于一致条件的反应时。实验二采用事件相关电位（ERP）记录了情绪性图片诱发的信号反应。结果发现,亲子沟通高分组对负性刺激所诱发的注意指向和集中（P2成分）及选择和巩固（P3成分）显著高于低分组。以上结果表明,亲子沟通较好,在注意早期定向和选择中会对负性情绪刺激产生注意偏向。亲子沟通较差,则对情绪性的刺激没有明显的偏向性,类似于“漠不关心”的状态。     

高中生的亲子沟通质量对情绪性刺激注意偏向的影响

为了探讨高中生亲子沟通质量对情绪性刺激注意偏向的影响,实验一采用亲子沟通量表,筛选出亲子沟通高分组和低分组,两组被试参加点探测任务,要求被试迅速判断情绪性图片出现后呈现的圆点的位置。实验为2（组别：高亲子沟通组、低亲子沟通组）×2（情绪类型：负性和正性）×2（探测点位置一致性：一致、不一致）的混合实验设计。结果发现,负性和正性刺激的不一致条件反应时均显著短于一致条件的反应时。实验二采用事件相关电位（ERP）记录了情绪性图片诱发的信号反应。结果发现,亲子沟通高分组对负性刺激所诱发的注意指向和集中（P2成分）及选择和巩固（P3成分）显著高于低分组。以上结果表明,亲子沟通较好,在注意早期定向和选择中会对负性情绪刺激产生注意偏向。亲子沟通较差,则对情绪性的刺激没有明显的偏向性,类似于“漠不关心”的状态。     

积极情绪对任务转换的影响

通过两个行为实验考察了积极情绪图片所诱发的情绪状态对任务转换的影响及其机制。研究任务是数字分类任务,分为保持和转换两个阶段。首先要求被试对靶刺激形成一定的习惯化反应,然后改变任务要求。实验1以53名大学生为被试,分别在积极情绪、消极情绪和中性条件下完成任务,发现在与中性条件相比时,积极情绪促进任务转换,消极情绪延缓任务转换。实验2以37名大学生为被试,增加了一种转换条件,考察积极情绪促进任务转换的心理原因,结果表明积极情绪因偏好新异刺激而促进任务转换     

场景在价值驱动注意捕获中的作用

本研究采用训练-测试范式考察场景信息在价值驱动注意捕获中的作用。实验1训练阶段将唯一性的场景信息与奖励建立联结,测试阶段发现只有当分心刺激出现在高奖励场景中才能捕获注意;实验2训练阶段将场景和颜色信息联合但分别独立预测奖励,结果发现高奖励颜色出现在任何场景中都能捕获注意。研究结果表明:(1)场景-价值联结能够引发注意捕获效应;(2)与场景相比,颜色特征在价值驱动的注意捕获中具有优势效应。     

Stimulus-driven and goal-driven effects on Pavlovian associative reward learning

It has been shown that pure Pavlovian associative reward learning can elicit value-driven attentional capture. However, in previous studies, task-irrelevant and response-independent reward-signalling stimuli hardly competed for visual selective attention. Here we put Pavlovian reward learning to the test by manipulating the extent to which bottom-up (Experiment 1) and top-down (Experiment 2) processes were involved in this type of learning. In Experiment 1, the stimulus, the colour of which signalled the magnitude of the reward given, was presented simultaneously with another randomly coloured stimulus, so that it did not capture attention in a stimulus-driven manner. In Experiment 2, observers performed an attentionally demanding RSVP-task at the centre of the screen to largely tax goal-driven attentional resources, while a task-irrelevant and response-independent stimulus in the periphery signalled the magnitude of the reward given. Both experiments showed value-driven attentional capture in a non-reward test phase, indicating that the reward-signalling stimuli were imbued with value during the Pavlovian reward conditioning phases. This suggests that pure Pavlovian reward conditioning can occur even when (1) competition prevents attention being automatically allocated to the reward-signalling stimulus in a stimulus-driven manner, and (2) attention is occupied by a demanding task, leaving little goal-driven attentional resources available to strategically select the reward-signalling stimulus. The observed value-driven attentional capture effects appeared to be similar for observers who could and could not explicitly report the stimulus–reward contingencies. Altogether, this study provides insight in the conditions under which mere stimulus–reward contingencies in the environment can be learned to affect future behaviour.     

Value-driven attentional and oculomotor capture during goal-directed, unconstrained viewing

Covert shifts of attention precede and direct overt eye movements to stimuli that are task relevant or physically salient. A growing body of evidence suggests that the learned value of perceptual stimuli strongly influences their attentional priority. For example, previously rewarded but otherwise irrelevant and inconspicuous stimuli capture covert attention involuntarily. It is unknown, however, whether stimuli also draw eye movements involuntarily as a consequence of their reward history. Here, we show that previously rewarded but currently task-irrelevant stimuli capture both attention and the eyes. Value-driven oculomotor capture was observed during unconstrained viewing, when neither eye movements nor fixations were required, and was strongly related to individual differences in visual working memory capacity. The appearance of a reward-associated stimulus came to evoke pupil dilation over the course of training, which provides physiological evidence that the stimuli that elicit value-driven capture come to serve as reward-predictive cues. These findings reveal a close coupling of value-driven attentional capture and eye movements that has broad implications for theories of attention and reward learning.     

Pavlovian reward learning underlies value driven attentional capture

Recent evidence shows that distractors that signal high compared to low reward availability elicit stronger attentional capture, even when this is detrimental for task-performance. This suggests that simply correlating stimuli with reward administration, rather than their instrumental relationship with obtaining reward, produces value-driven attentional capture. However, in previous studies, reward delivery was never response independent, as only correct responses were rewarded, nor was it completely task-irrelevant, as the distractor signaled the magnitude of reward that could be earned on that trial. In two experiments, we ensured that associative reward learning was completely response independent by letting participants perform a task at fixation, while high and low rewards were automatically administered following the presentation of task-irrelevant colored stimuli in the periphery (Experiment 1) or at fixation (Experiment 2). In a following non-reward test phase, using the additional singleton paradigm, the previously reward signaling stimuli were presented as distractors to assess truly task-irrelevant value driven attentional capture. The results showed that high compared to low reward-value associated distractors impaired performance, and thus captured attention more strongly. This suggests that genuine Pavlovian conditioning of stimulus-reward contingencies is sufficient to obtain value-driven attentional capture. Furthermore, value-driven attentional capture can occur following associative reward learning of temporally and spatially task-irrelevant distractors that signal the magnitude of available reward (Experiment 1), and is independent of training spatial shifts of attention towards the reward signaling stimuli (Experiment 2). This confirms and strengthens the idea that Pavlovian reward learning underlies value driven attentional capture.     

On the value-dependence of value-driven attentional capture

Findings from an increasingly large number of studies have been used to argue that attentional capture can be dependent on the learned value of a stimulus, or value-driven. However, under certain circumstances attention can be biased to select stimuli that previously served as targets, independent of reward history. Value-driven attentional capture, as studied using the training phase-test phase design introduced by Anderson and colleagues, is widely presumed to reflect the combined influence of learned value and selection history. However, the degree to which attentional capture is at all dependent on value learning in this paradigm has recently been questioned. Support for value-dependence can be provided through one of two means: (1) greater attentional capture by prior targets following rewarded training than following unrewarded training, and (2) greater attentional capture by prior targets previously associated with high compared to low value. Using a variant of the original value-driven attentional capture paradigm, Sha and Jiang (Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 78, 403–414, 2016) failed to find evidence of either, and raised criticisms regarding the adequacy of evidence provided by prior studies using this particular paradigm. To address this disparity, here we provided a stringent test of the value-dependence hypothesis using the traditional value-driven attentional capture paradigm. With a sufficiently large sample size, value-dependence was observed based on both criteria, with no evidence of attentional capture without rewards during training. Our findings support the validity of the traditional value-driven attentional capture paradigm in measuring what its name purports to measure.     

Sensitivity to value-driven attention is predicted by how we learn from value

Reward learning is known to influence the automatic capture of attention. This study examined how the rate of learning, after high- or low-value reward outcomes, can influence future transfers into value-driven attentional capture. Participants performed an instrumental learning task that was directly followed by an attentional capture task. A hierarchical Bayesian reinforcement model was used to infer individual differences in learning from high or low reward. Results showed a strong relationship between high-reward learning rates (or the weight that is put on learning after a high reward) and the magnitude of attentional capture with high-reward colors. Individual differences in learning from high or low rewards were further related to performance differences when high- or low-value distractors were present. These findings provide novel insight into the development of value-driven attentional capture by showing how information updating after desired or undesired outcomes can influence future deployments of automatic attention.     

Assessing the role of accuracy-based feedback in value-driven attentional capture

Despite being physically nonsalient and task-irrelevant, objects rendered in a color that once signaled monetary reward reflexively capture attention during visual search, a phenomenon known as value-driven attentional capture (VDAC). However, it remains a subject of empirical controversy whether learned reward associations are necessary to driving subsequent attentional capture: VDAC-like effects have been observed when accuracy-based feedback alone was used during the VDAC training phase, resulting in attentional capture by objects that were never associated with monetary reward; perplexingly, the presence of these VDAC-like effects in the literature conflicts with those of a number of control studies in which no such capture has been observed, leaving the issue currently unresolved. In this Registered Report, we present new empirical evidence of attentional capture by unrewarded former targets following limited accuracy-based training. We proposed to replicate these results in an independent sample and to test an empirically derived hypothesis concerning a methodological difference between the studies that have shown VDAC-like effects with accuracy-based feedback and those that have not. In short, we found no evidence that this methodological difference accounts for the inconsistencies in the literature, but our replication efforts were overwhelmingly successful, thus reinvigorating debate about the role that selection history may play in value-driven attentional capture.     

The modulation of reward priority by top-down knowledge

Reward-associated features capture attention automatically and continue to do so even when the reward contingencies are removed. This profile has led to the hypothesis that rewards belong to a separate class of attentional biases that is neither typically top-down nor bottom-up. The goal of these experiments was to understand the degree to which top-down knowledge can modulate value-driven attentional capture within (a) the timecourse of a single trial and (b) when the reward contingencies change explicitly over trials. The results suggested that top-down knowledge does not affect the size of value-driven attentional capture within a single trial. There were clear top-down modulations in the magnitude of value-driven capture when reward contingencies explicitly changed, but the original reward associations continued to have a persistent bias on attention. These results contribute to a growing body of evidence that reward associations bias attention through mechanisms separate from other top-down and bottom-up attentional biases.     

奖励影响注意选择的认知加工机制

奖励不仅能够塑造行为, 也能影响个体的内部心理过程。在注意选择过程中, 与奖励联结的刺激能够吸引注意资源。当目标刺激与奖励联结时, 能够易化注意选择过程; 当分心刺激与奖励联结时, 能够阻碍注意选择过程。可见, 奖励从不同角度对注意选择产生影响。奖励对注意选择的影响可能有其特有的认知机制, 并且奖励对注意的捕获效应受到许多因素的调节, 如奖励预测、工作记忆容量、人格特质及刺激的新异性。未来的研究应该尝试将奖励影响注意选择的研究成果应用于不良注意偏向临床干预的实践领域。