Motivation did not interact with visuospatial attention effects on post-stimulus visual evoked potentials to imperative stimuli¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr1·q3
Currency · newest study 2015 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q3 i? For bilateral non-target stimuli, attention modulated C1, P1, N1 and P3, but no significant interactions with the factor of motivation were found. → Banerjee Snigdha 2015
Evidence¶
Banerjee Snigdha 2015¶
Banerjee Snigdha, Frey Hans-Peter, Molholm Sophie, Foxe John J. (2015). Interests shape how adolescents pay attention: The interaction of motivation and top-down attentional processes in biasing sensory activations to anticipated events. The European Journal of Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejn.12810
q3 · i? · causal · r1
Post-stimulus VEP analysis of bilateral non-targets (average 85 trials per condition) in the cued attention task; attention effects were significant (e.g., P3 attended location × ROI F(1,23) = 68.37, p <.001) but motivation effects were not tested via main effects. Equivalence was not tested.
"There were no significant interactions with the factor of motivation, and main effects of motivation were not considered as differences in features across high and low interest stimuli may have influenced the amplitudes of these components"
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Sensory evoked responses to the cue stimuli did not differ between high- and low-interest blocks, arguing against block-level arousal differences — related
- Motivation modulates anticipatory attentional processing: high-interest stimuli produced larger LDAP-period amplitude over right parieto-occipital cortex — related
- Adolescents show higher target-detection sensitivity (d-prime) for high-interest than low-interest stimuli, with better performance in the right hemifield — related
- Cognitive deficits in children with ADHD are not permanent neuropsychological impairments and cognitive capacity can be modulated by motivation — related
- Post-hoc finding: P1 latency was increased for attended versus unattended unilateral stimuli, selectively over the ipsilateral ROI — related
- Adolescents show adult-like anticipatory broadband ERP attention components (ADAN, LDAP, BRN) contralateral to the attended location — related
- Processing of affective stimuli is prioritized and interferes with target processing during the attentional blink interval in early adolescence — related
- Exploratory analysis reveals sustained greater anticipatory activation for high versus low motivation conditions from 700–1100 ms post-cue over parieto-occipital scalp — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
motivation-no-post-stimulus-vep-modulation |
title |
Motivation did not interact with visuospatial attention effects on post-stimulus visual evoked potentials to imperative stimuli |
description |
Motivation did not interact with visuospatial attention effects on post-stimulus visual evoked potentials to imperative stimuli |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2015 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-17 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — banerjee-snigdha-2015 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.