Pourtois, G. | bioRxiv Science

bioRxiv2025

Neither exogenous, nor endogenous: evidence for a distinct role of negative emotion during attentional control

Negative or threatening stimuli capture attention. However, it remains unclear whether this phenomenon is best conceived as bottom-up (i.e. salience-driven) or top-down (i.e. goal- directed) instead. To address this question, we conducted two experiments using a previously validated dot-probe task (DPT) where physical salience (i.e. abrupt luminance change) and negative emotion (i.e. fearful face) competed with one another for attention selection (Experiment 1, n = 40) or negative (but also positive) emotion could be used as an endogenous cue by the participants to guide this process (Experiment 2, n = 39). Eye-tracking was used to ascertain that both cue and target were processed with peripheral vision. In Experiment 1, we found that negative emotion and physical salience both drove spatial attention in a bottom-up manner, yet their effects were under-additive, suggesting that they could mutually inhibit each other. Moreover, the results of Experiment 2 showed that fear, unlike happiness, could bias spatial attention in a top-down manner, yet only when participants were aware of the association created between the emotional cue and targets location at the block level. Combined together, these novel findings suggest that negative value does not influence the priority map independently from physical salience and goal but depending on the specific combination of cues available for attention selection in the environment, it acts either as an exogenous or endogenous cue, thereby revealing an enhanced flexibility for it.

neuroscience↗

bioRxiv2023

Need for cognition moderates cognitive effort aversion

When making decisions, humans aim to maximize rewards while minimizing costs. The exertion of mental or physical effort has been proposed to be one those costs, translating into avoidance of behaviors carrying effort demands. This motivational framework also predicts that people should experience positive affect when anticipating demand that is subsequently avoided (i.e., a "relief effect"), but evidence for this prediction is scarce. Here, we follow up on a previous study (1) that provided some initial evidence that people more positively evaluated outcomes if it meant they could avoid performing an additional demanding task. However, the results from this study did not provide evidence that this effect was driven by effort avoidance. Here, we report two experiments that are able to do this. Participants performed a gambling task, and if they did not receive reward they would have to perform an orthogonal effort task. Prior to the gamble, a cue indicated whether this effort task would be easy or hard. We probed hedonic responses to the reward-related feedback, as well as after the subsequent effort task feedback. Participants reported lower hedonic responses for no-reward outcomes when high vs. low effort was anticipated (and later exerted). They also reported higher hedonic responses for reward outcomes when high vs. low effort was anticipated (and avoided). Importantly, this relief effect was smaller in participants with high need for cognition. These results suggest that avoidance of high effort tasks is rewarding, but that the size off this effect depends on the individual disposition to engage with and expend cognitive effort. They also raise the important question of whether this disposition alters the cost of effort per se, or rather offset this cost during cost-benefit analyses.

neuroscience↗