Figure 1.

(A) Task design from Experiment 2 from Chiew and Braver (2016). Incentive and task-informative cues were manipulated on a trial-by-trial basis, while the two timing conditions (Early and Late Incentive) were blocked. This figure shows an incentivized, task-informed trial for both Early Incentive and Late Incentive conditions. In the Early Incentive condition, participants were first presented with a rectangle (with rectangle color indicating incentive status—green for incentive trials, white for non-incentive trials), followed by informative (shapes surrounding the rectangle indicating upcoming congruent, neutral, or incongruent array) or uninformative (question marks surrounding the rectangle) cue, followed by target (flanker array). In the Late Incentive condition, participants were presented with the informative/uninformative cue first, followed by incentive/unincentive cue, followed by target. Importantly, informative cues indicated upcoming trial status but not the direction of the flanker arrow, so participants could not use the information to prepare a motor response. Participants were explicitly instructed on the meaning of the incentive and task-informative cues and tested both before and after the task to ensure that cues had been learned. Participants were required to respond prior to an individualized reaction time criterion (30th percentile of correct reaction times from a prior baseline; 1000 ms total response window), then received liquid feedback and a 2000 ms ITI. Participants were rewarded only when accurate and faster than criterion. The average reward rate was 75% (range: 46–96%) under Early Incentive and 71% (range: 41–99%) under Late Incentive, compared to an expected reward rate of 30% at baseline performance, indicating that the incentives enhanced overall performance. (B) Reaction time (RT) interference in Experiment 2 as a function of incentive and task information. Asterisks indicate significant effects (p < 0.05). In the Early Incentive condition, a significant Incentive × Information interaction was observed such that interference was lowest in incentivized, informed trials. Main effects of Incentive and Information were not significant. In the Late Incentive condition, no significant differences in interference as a function of these factors were observed. While Incentive and Information led to different effects within timing condition as noted, it should be noted that a full three-way interaction of Timing × Incentive × Information was not significant (F_(1,23) = 1.864, p = 0.185).