Guiding spatial attention by multimodal reward cues

Hoofs, Vincent; Grahek, Ivan; Boehler, C. Nico; Krebs, Ruth M. · 2022 · Crossref

DOI: 10.3758/s13414-021-02422-x

archive: archived pipeline: cataloged verified

Get this paper ↗ (DOI — opens at the source; we link to it, we don't host it)

Summary

This study investigates how multimodal reward cues guide spatial attention, addressing a gap in research regarding the intersection of reward-based attention and multisensory processing. While visual reward effects and multimodal cueing benefits are well-documented, the specific impact of combining auditory and visual reward signals on attentional orienting remains unclear. The authors aimed to determine whether simultaneous audiovisual reward cues produce an additive benefit, a maximum effect, or a qualitatively different temporal profile compared to unimodal cues. The researchers employed a Posner cueing task across three experiments. In Experiment 1, participants responded to visual targets preceded by peripheral cues that were visual, auditory, or audiovisual. These cues predicted target location with 80% validity and signaled either a monetary reward prospect or no reward. The study manipulated cue-target stimulus-onset asynchronies (SOAs) ranging from 100 to 1,300 ms to assess the time course of attentional effects. Experiments 2 and 3 served as follow-ups, isolating visual and auditory reward cues, respectively, to determine if the differential effects observed in Experiment 1 were due to context or inherent modality differences. Performance was measured via reaction times (RTs) and error rates, with adaptive response windows to maintain consistent motivation. Results from Experiment 1 revealed that reward prospect generally enhanced cue-validity effects, but the temporal dynamics depended on cue modality. Visual reward cues amplified the validity effect primarily at short SOAs (100 ms), whereas audiovisual reward cues enhanced the effect at longer SOAs (900 ms). Auditory reward cues alone did not significantly modulate the validity effect. Follow-up experiments confirmed these findings: Experiment 2 showed that visual reward cues robustly increased the validity effect, while Experiment 3 demonstrated that auditory reward cues had no significant impact on attentional guidance in isolation. This indicates that the lack of effect for auditory cues in Experiment 1 was not merely a result of being overshadowed by visual cues in a mixed context. The study concludes that multimodal reward signals do not simply combine linearly to increase attentional capture amplitude. Instead, adding an auditory reward cue to a visual one shifts and extends the temporal window of the validity effect. This suggests that different reward signals engage qualitatively different processes, with visual cues driving rapid attentional orienting and audiovisual cues sustaining attention over longer intervals. These findings highlight the complexity of multisensory reward integration and suggest that multimodal signals may optimize attentional guidance by extending its duration rather than just its intensity.

Provenance

The full processing record for this entry. Every stage of this paper's journey through the pipeline is logged — what ran, with which tool and model, how many attempts it took, and when it last completed.

Summary generated by qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant on 2026-06-25; verification: verified.

Topics

Ranked by relevance to this paper. Hover a topic for its definition.

• multisensory crossmodal
• attention selective divided
• multimodal feedback