Exploring reward-related attention selectivity deficits in Parkinson’s disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An important aspect of managing a limited cognitive resource like attention is to use the reward value of stimuli to prioritize the allocation of attention to higher-value over lower-value stimuli. Recent evidence suggests this depends on dopaminergic signaling of reward. In Parkinson's disease, both reward sensitivity and attention are impaired, but whether these deficits are directly related to one another is unknown. We tested whether Parkinson's patients use reward information when automatically allocating their attention and whether this is modulated by dopamine replacement. We compared patients, tested both ON and OFF dopamine replacement medication, to older controls using a standard attention capture task. First, participants learned the different reward values of stimuli. Then, these reward-associated stimuli were used as distractors in a visual search task. We found that patients were generally distracted by the presence of the distractors but that the degree of distraction caused by the high-value and low-value distractors was similar. Furthermore, we found no evidence to support the possibility that dopamine replacement modulates the effect of reward on automatic attention allocation. Our results suggest a possible inability in Parkinson's patients to use the reward value of stimuli when automatically allocating their attention, and raise the possibility that reward-driven allocation of resources may affect the adaptive modulation of other cognitive processes.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".