Abstract

Monkey studies report greater activity in the lateral intraparietal area and more efficient saccades when targets coincide with the location of prior reward cues, even when cue location does not indicate which responses will be rewarded. This suggests that reward can modulate spatial attention and visual selection independent of the "action value" of the motor response. Our goal was first to determine whether reward modulated visual selection similarly in humans, and next, to discover whether reward and penalty differed in effect, if cue effects were greater for cognitively demanding antisaccades, and if financial consequences that were contingent on stimulus location had spatially selective effects. We found that motivational cues reduced all latencies, more for reward than penalty. There was an "inhibition-of-return"-like effect at the location of the cue, but unlike the results in monkeys, cue valence did not modify this effect in prosaccades, and the inhibition-of-return effect was slightly increased rather than decreased in antisaccades. When financial consequences were contingent on target location, locations without reward or penalty consequences lost the benefits seen in noncontingent trials, whereas locations with consequences maintained their gains. We conclude that unlike monkeys, humans show reward effects not on visual selection but on the value of actions. The human saccadic system has both the capacity to enhance responses to multiple locations simultaneously, and the flexibility to focus motivational enhancement only on locations with financial consequences. Reward is more effective than penalty, and both interact with the additional attentional demands of the antisaccade task.