Suppressing sex and money: Response inhibition leads to devaluation of motivationally salient visual stimuli
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stimuli that are ignored or otherwise inhibited during the course of a visual task typically receive more negative evaluations than stimuli that are the targets of attention or a behavioural response. This distractor devaluation effect occurs, not only for stimuli that are otherwise affectively neutral, but also for images that are clearly positive or negative in valence (Fenske et al.,VSS, 2009). This suggests that inhibition may elicit negative affect for task-irrelevant items, regardless of their a priori affective status. Here we examine whether similar effects occur for motivationally salient stimuli-- images of men and women that vary in sexual attractiveness (Exp. 1) and abstract patterns associated with monetary loss or gain (Exp. 2)-- presented as ‘Go’ or ‘No-go’ items in a response-inhibition task. Affective evaluations obtained after the Go/No-go task revealed higher ratings, overall, for images depicting individuals of the sex matching the participants' pre-stated preference than for images depicting their non-preferred sex. Higher ratings were also obtained for gain-associated patterns than for loss-associated patterns. Importantly, the magnitude of inhibition-related devaluation, manifested as a reduction in ratings for ‘No-go’ items to which a response was withheld compared to ‘Go’ items to which a response was made, was similar for all images regardless of their prior motivational status. These findings raise the possibility that attentional and behavioural inhibition trigger an avoidance response that can modify the reward value associated with a visual object. Findings are discussed in terms of potential applications of cognitive tasks for modulating the pathologically-high salience of stimuli associated with motivational disorders (e.g., drug-associated cues in addiction).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".