Summary: New research suggests our neurons prioritize actions based on benefits, not patterns, challenging the idea that software simply” grabs” interest. When given numerous tasks, participants regularly chose the option with the highest reward, according to the review, even if it was in conflict with a developed behavior.
This reward-driven interest helps clarify why modern technology is so interesting, it taps into our normal preference for quick, valuable rewards. Understanding how we make decisions about actions at the moment may help with future research on long-term planning, particularly for decisions involving personal values. In fact, it’s no technology but our reward-seeking thoughts that drive interest shifts.
Important Facts:
- Reward-driven interest: People prioritize things with the highest perceived reward over routine activities.
- Tech’s role: Digital tech does n’t control attention but leverages our natural reward-seeking tendencies.
- Potential study: It is planned to look at how we recall future decisions.
Origin: Univesity of Copenhagen
We are frequently blamed for drowning in data and losing our focus on our phones. According to new research from the University of Copenhagen, it is more our internal compensation system that our apps and technology companies use.
We often hear that we live in an , attention , business, where , technology companies , like Google, Apple, and Facebook provide us with an overwhelming number of amazing data that steals our attention.
This is not bad, but our knowledge of how interest works is ambiguous. Researchers from the University of Copenhagen report a new research that demonstrates how our focus is remarkably effective. And that it enables us to obtain rewards, which is what our neurons most desire.
In a series of controlled tests that have just been published in the content” Testing Slanted Competition Between Attention Shifts” in the book Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, the researchers have examined what causes people to concentrate on a certain activity when presented with a range of different course of action.
In the experiments, the choices were represented by a series of boxes on a computer screen, which could hold between 1 and 9 points. A corner of the screen where a random letter was displayed was associated with each box. The next step was to report one of the letters and thus receive the points that the box had given.
” The participants in our experiments were given four boxes at once, and they had to turn their attention to one of the options right away. By entering a letter that appeared in the corner of the screen, they marked the attention shift.
The Cognition, Intention, and Action research group, which he leads with Professor Sven Kyllingsbk, had to repeat the process thousands of times by each individual participant to make certain that it was not a matter of chance.
The participants ‘ simultaneous attention preparations are demonstrated by our experiments. That is, several attention shifts are competing for the same task at once. We can demonstrate that the shift with the highest reward typically prevails by relating the various shifts to various rewards.
The results of the experiments indicate that reward plays a key role in determining what we notice and remember doing when we are given numerous opportunities.
Therefore, Grünbaum and Kyllingsbæk also believe that it is imprecise to talk about the digital world stealing or controlling our attention. It is almost the opposite. The technology frequently makes use of our ability to pick precisely the content that offers the best reward when presented with a wide range of options.
In other words, what tech companies use are our subjective values to reward our shifts in focus and behavior.
Habits versus rewards
Normally we think of habits as close to unbreakable, but here too the experiment can tell us something important.
It imparts a lesson about how we behave in a setting where we have been trained to perform a specific action. The experiment participants learned a lot about how to connect a single box to a particular corner of the screen.
” Training the attention shifts should lead to their becoming a habit.” We show that they choose the reward over the habitual behavior when they are given four competing actions that they have a short time to choose from, says Grünbaum.
In the experimental situation, the action with the highest subjective value is most likely to be selected, even though other actions have been trained extensively, conclude the authors.
This implies that values compete with deeply held beliefs, which is frequently won by the habit when something else is more important. Additionally, this insight is worthwhile to include in the discussion of attention economy.
Long-term planning
The researchers will begin a project that will look at how we plan for the long term as the next step. What happens when we try to plan actions in the future is revealed in the current experiment, but what does it look like in the short term?
If I’ve already made the decision to purchase flour on the way home from work, I need to store the decision in my long-term memory. What we want to understand is how to recall the actions we take. Especially when we have planned several different actions, which we typically do,” says Grünbaum.
Grünbaum and Kyllingsböck anticipate that the action that we value the most will receive our attention here as well. However, other factors come into play when we are in the real world as opposed to a laboratory.
Recent research has demonstrated that the way we remember things is influenced greatly by our surroundings. One can assume that my plan to purchase flour will be activated if I pass a supermarket sign when I get home from work. We are creating experimental designs to examine the factors that go into choosing between competing plans.
about this news and neuroscience research
Author: Thor Grünbaum
Source: University of Copenhagen
Contact: Thor Grünbaum – University of Copenhagen
Image: The image is credited to Neuroscience News
Original Research: Open access.
Testing biased competition between attention shifts: The new multiple cue paradigm, by Thor Grünbaum et al. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance
Abstract
Testing biased competition between attention shifts: The new multiple cue paradigm
While the classic Posner cuing , paradigm , has been used to study cuing of a single , endogenous , shift of attention, we present a new multiple , cue , paradigm to study the , competition  , between multiple endogenous shifts of attention.
The new paradigm enables us to control how many competing attention shifts are and how they are compared to one another.
We demonstrate in three experiments that limited capacity and biased competition affect the selection of one of the other important attention shifts.
We demonstrate that the total number of attention shifts competing for execution have an impact on the likelihood of performing the most optimal attention shift, and that the choice between attention shifts is influenced by the total number of attention shifts ‘ performance.
We explain our results with a recent , mathematical model , of biased selection of , response sets , ( the model of , intention , selection]MIS] ).
Our new paradigm offers a , critical , test of MIS and is an important new tool for investigating the mechanisms underlying the , retrieval , of response sets from , long-term memory ( LTM).
The model ( MIS ) and the new multiple cue paradigm can provide a new , perspective , on LTM representations of response sets for , instrumental , action and on habitual and goal-directed processing in action control.
