The Temporal Dimension of Efficacy Modulates the Effect of Reward on Interference Inhibition

Liu Ying; Zhang Qihan; Lu Liuliu; Lyu Jia; Jiang Jiali; Bai Xuejun

doi:10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20260507

PDF(1118 KB)

Journal of Psychological Science ›› 2026, Vol. 49 ›› Issue (5) : 1098-1108. DOI: 10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20260507

General Psychology，Experimental Psychology & Ergonomics

The Temporal Dimension of Efficacy Modulates the Effect of Reward on Interference Inhibition

Liu Ying ¹^,² ,
Zhang Qihan ¹^,²^,³^,^** ,
Lu Liuliu ¹^,² ,
Lyu Jia ¹^,² ,
Jiang Jiali ¹^,² ,
Bai Xuejun ¹^,²^,³^,^**

Author information +

History +

Abstract

Interference inhibition is a core component of cognitive control, referring to the ability to complete goal-directed tasks by suppressing distracting or competing cognitive processes. Previous research on the effects of reward on interference inhibition has yielded inconsistent findings (facilitative vs. null effects). The expected value of control (EVC) theory provides an integrative framework. It proposes that the allocation of cognitive control resources depends on a cost-benefit trade-off, with efficacy playing a key moderating role. Efficacy refers to the degree to which task performance predicts reward. However, existing research generally treats efficacy as a static property and overlooks its distinct temporal forms. Efficacy is fundamentally an expectation formed through accumulated feedback and may comprise both a short-term, trial-level component and a more stable, cross-trial component. To date, no study has systematically examined whether the temporal dimension of efficacy determines the depth at which reward influences different levels of cognitive control. Accordingly, the present study aimed to investigate how immediate efficacy and cumulative efficacy, as two temporal forms of efficacy, modulated the impact of reward on overall cognitive performance and on interference inhibition as a higher-level control process.

The present study employed the classic color-word Stroop task and rigorously controlled relative task difficulty using individualized reaction-time thresholds to eliminate confounds arising from differences in expected cost. Across two experiments, we separately manipulated immediate efficacy and cumulative efficacy in order to systematically examine how the temporal dimension of efficacy shaped the level at which reward influenced cognitive control. Reward levels were set as high (￥1) and low (￥0.1). In the high-efficacy condition, rewards were contingent on task performance, whereas in the low-efficacy condition, rewards were randomly assigned. Experiment 1 (n= 39) used a 2 (immediate reward: high, low) × 2 (immediate efficacy: high, low) × 3 (congruency: incongruent, congruent, neutral) within-subject design. Reward and efficacy cues were presented before each trial to investigate the effects of immediate reward and immediate efficacy on interference inhibition. Results indicated that immediate efficacy moderated the effect of immediate reward on overall cognitive performance, with reward producing greater improvements in reaction speed under high efficacy conditions (F(1, 38) = 22.25, p <.001, η_p² =.37). However, neither factor significantly influenced interference inhibition (Stroop effect).

Previous research suggests that efficacy exhibits cumulative learning characteristics, requiring multiple interactions with the environment to integrate task feedback and prediction errors. Psychological momentum theory further supports this view, proposing that repeated positive feedback enhances an individual’s psychological energy, thereby improving behavioral performance. Based on these considerations, experiment 2 (n= 33) employed a 2 (immediate reward: high, low) × 2 (cumulative efficacy: high, low) × 3 (congruency: incongruent, congruent, neutral) within-subject design. Efficacy cues were presented at the beginning of each block, and reward cues were presented before each trial, to examine the effects of immediate reward and cumulative efficacy on interference inhibition. Results demonstrated that cumulative efficacy moderated the effects of immediate reward on both overall cognitive performance (F(1, 32) = 4.57, p <.05, η_p² =.13) and interference inhibition (F(1, 32) = 10.46, p <.01, η_p² =.25). Under high efficacy conditions, high reward enhanced interference inhibition, whereas under low efficacy conditions, high reward reduced interference inhibition.

The present study introduced the temporal dimension of efficacy for the first time and demonstrated that this dimension modulated the level at which reward influenced cognitive control. Immediate efficacy modulated only the effect of reward on overall cognitive performance, whereas cumulative efficacy allowed the influence of reward to extend to the level of interference inhibition. This work provides more fine-grained and explanatory behavioral evidence for the EVC framework and deepens our understanding of how motivation shapes cognitive control.

Key words

reward / efficacy / the temporal dimension of efficacy / interference inhibition / Stroop task / expected value of control theory

Cite this article

EndNote

Ris (Procite)

Bibtex

Download Citations

Liu Ying , Zhang Qihan , Lu Liuliu , et al . The Temporal Dimension of Efficacy Modulates the Effect of Reward on Interference Inhibition[J]. Journal of Psychological Science. 2026, 49(5): 1098-1108 https://doi.org/10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20260507

References

List( Publishing order | Descend order by publishing year | Descend order by cited within ) Chart analysis

[1]	曹思琪, 汤晨晨, 伍海燕, 刘勋. (2022). 价值计算决定何时与如何努力. 心理科学进展, 30(4), 877-887. Cited in this article [1]

[2]	史康音, 费泊尧, 郭鸣谦. (2025). 基于强化学习理论的认知控制计算模型. 心理科学, 48(5), 1076-1088. Cited in this article [2]

[3]	司双庆, 周思宏, 袁加锦, 杨倩. (2024). 认知控制过程的影响因素:回报与代价. 心理科学, 47(2), 258-266. Cited in this article [2]

[4]	唐丹丹, 刘培朵, 陈安涛. (2012). 色-词Stroop任务中的冲突类型述评. 心理科学进展, 20(12), 1962-1970. Cited in this article [1]

[5]	王斌强, 张银燕, 杨玲. (2019). 金钱惩罚促进Stroop任务中的行为表现. 心理科学, 42(6), 1389-1395. Cited in this article [1]

[6]	Bräutigam, L. C., Leuthold, H., Mackenzie, I. G., & Mittelstädt, V. (2024). Proactive reward in conflict tasks: Does it only enhance general performance or also modulate conflict effects? Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 86(6), 2153-2168. Cited in this article [2]

[7]	Bundt, C., Abrahamse, E. L., Braem, S., Brass, M., & Notebaert, W. (2016). Reward anticipation modulates primary motor cortex excitability during task preparation. NeuroImage, 142, 483-488. Cited in this article [1]

[8]	Bundt, C., Boehler, C. N., Verbruggen, F., Brass, M., & Notebaert, W. (2021). Reward does not modulate corticospinal excitability in anticipation of a Stroop trial. European Journal of Neuroscience, 53(4), 1019-1028. Cited in this article [1]

[9]	Bustamante, L., Lieder, F., Musslick, S., Shenhav, A., & Cohen, J. (2021). Learning to overexert cognitive control in a Stroop task. Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience, 21(3), 453-471. Cited in this article [1]

[10]	Cao, S. Q., Liu, X., & Wu, H. Y. (2022). The neural mechanisms underlying effort process modulated by efficacy. Neuropsychologia, 173, Article 108314. Cited in this article [1]

[11]	Carsten, T., Hoofs, V., Boehler, C. N., & Krebs, R. M. (2019). Are losses more effective than rewards in improving performance in a cognitive task? Motivation Science, 5(3), 257-268. Cited in this article [2]

[12]	Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227-268. Cited in this article [1]

[13]	Diamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64(1), 135-168. Cited in this article [1]

[14]	Erb, C. D., Germine, L., & Hartshorne, J. K. (2023). Cognitive control across the lifespan: Congruency effects reveal divergent developmental trajectories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 152(11), 3285-3291. Cited in this article [1]

[15]	Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). GPower 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods*, 39(2), 175-191. Cited in this article [1]

[16]	Fröber, K., & Dreisbach, G. (2014). The differential influences of positive affect, random reward, and performance-contingent reward on cognitive control. Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience, 14(2), 530-547. Cited in this article [2]

[17]	Frömer, R., Lin, H., Dean Wolf, C. K., Inzlicht, M., & Shenhav, A. (2021). Expectations of reward and efficacy guide cognitive control allocation. Nature Communications, 12(1), Article 1030. Cited in this article [10]

[18]	Grahek, I., Frömer, R., Prater Fahey, M., & Shenhav, A. (2023). Learning when effort matters: Neural dynamics underlying updating and adaptation to changes in performance efficacy. Cerebral Cortex, 33(5), 2395-2411. Cited in this article [7]

[19]	Hofmans, L., van den Bosch, R., Määttä J. I., Verkes, R. J., Aarts, E., & Cools, R. (2020). The cognitive effects of a promised bonus do not depend on dopamine synthesis capacity. Scientific Reports, 10(1), Article 16473. Cited in this article [1]

[20]	Hung, Y., Gaillard, S. L., Yarmak, P., & Arsalidou, M. (2018). Dissociations of cognitive inhibition, response inhibition, and emotional interference: Voxelwise ALE meta-analyses of fMRI studies. Human Brain Mapping, 39(10), 4065-4082. Cited in this article [1]

[21]

Hsieh,

M. T.

, Lu,

, Chen,

L. F.

, Liu,

C. Y.

, Hsu,

S. C.

, & Cheng,

C. H.

(2022). Cancellation but not restraint ability is modulated by trait anxiety: An event-related potential and oscillation study using Go-Nogo and stop-signal tasks. Journal of Affective Disorders, 299(15), 188-195.

Cited in this article [1]

[22]	Hsieh, M. T., Lu, H., Lin, C. I., Sun, T. H., Chen, Y. R., & Cheng, C. H. (2021). Effects of trait anxiety on error processing and post-error adjustments: An event-related potential study with stop-signal task. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 15, Article 650838. Cited in this article [1]

[23]	Iso-Ahola, S. E., & Dotson, C. O. (2014). Psychological momentum: Why success breeds success. Review of General Psychology, 18(1), 19-33. Cited in this article [4]

[24]	Kostandyan, M., Park, H. R. P., Bundt, C., González-García, C., Wisniewski, D., Krebs, R. M., & Boehler, C. N. (2020). Are all behavioral reward benefits created equally? An EEG-fMRI study. NeuroImage, 215, Article 116829. Cited in this article [1]

[25]	Krebs, R. M., Boehler, C. N., Appelbaum, L. G., & Woldorff, M. G. (2013). Reward associations reduce behavioral interference by changing the temporal dynamics of conflict processing. PLoS ONE, 8(1), Article e53894. Cited in this article [1]

[26]	Krebs, R. M., Boehler, C. N., Egner, T., & Woldorff, M. G. (2011). The neural underpinnings of how reward associations can both guide and misguide attention. Journal of Neuroscience, 31(26), 9752-9759. Cited in this article [1]

[27]	Krebs, R. M., Boehler, C. N., & Woldorff, M. G. (2010). The influence of reward associations on conflict processing in the stroop task. Cognition, 117(3), 341-347. Cited in this article [1]

[28]

Kucina,

, Wells,

, Lewis,

, de Salas,

, Kohl,

, Palmer,

M. A.

, Sauer,

J. D.

, Matzke,

, Aidman,

, & Heathcote,

(2023). Calibration of cognitive tests to address the reliability paradox for decision-conflict tasks. Nature Communications, 14(1), Article 2234.

Cited in this article [1]

[29]

Kukkonen,

, Braem,

, Allaert,

, Eayrs,

J. O.

, Prutean,

, Steendam,

S. T.

, Boehler,

C. N.

, Wiersema,

J. R.

, Notebaert,

, & Krebs,

R. M.

(2025). The cost of regulating effort: Reward and difficulty cues with longer prediction horizons have a stronger impact on performance. Journal of Cognition, 8(1), 1-22.

Cited in this article [1]

[30]	Ma, I., van Holstein, M., Mies, G. W., Mennes, M., Buitelaar, J., Cools, R., Cillessen, A. H., Krebs, R. M., & Scheres, A. (2016). Ventral striatal hyperconnectivity during rewarded interference control in adolescents with ADHD. Cortex, 82, 225-236. Cited in this article [2]

[31]	Manohar, S. G., Finzi, R. D., Drew, D., & Husain, M. (2017). Distinct motivational effects of contingent and noncontingent rewards. Psychological Science, 28(7), 1016-1026. Cited in this article [1]

[32]	Mittelstädt, V., Ulrich, R., König, J., Hofbauer, K., & Mackenzie, I. G. (2023). The influence of reward in the Simon task: Differences and similarities to the Stroop and Eriksen flanker tasks. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 85(3), 949-959. Cited in this article [1]

[33]	Musslick, S., Cohen, J. D., & Shenhav, A. (2018). Estimating the costs of cognitive control from task performance: Theoretical validation and potential pitfalls. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 40, 798-803. Cited in this article [1]

[34]	Nigg, J. T. (2000). On inhibition/disinhibition in developmental psychopathology: Views from cognitive and personality psychology and a working inhibition taxonomy. Psychological Bulletin, 126(2), 220-246. Cited in this article [1]

[35]	Padmala, S., & Pessoa, L. (2011). Reward reduces conflict by enhancing attentional control and biasing visual cortical processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(11), 3419-3432. Cited in this article [1]

[36]	Rosell-Negre, P., Bustamante, J. C., Fuentes-Claramonte, P., Costumero, V., Benabarre, S., & Barrós-Loscertales, A. (2017). Monetary reward magnitude effects on behavior and brain function during goal-directed behavior. Brain Imaging and Behavior, 11(4), 1037-1049. Cited in this article [1]

[37]	Schwabe, L., Höffken, O., Tegenthoff, M., & Wolf, O. T. (2013). Stress-induced enhancement of response inhibition depends on mineralocorticoid receptor activation. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 38(10), 2319-2326. Cited in this article [1]

[38]	Shenhav, A., Botvinick, M., & Cohen, J. (2013). The expected value of control: An integrative theory of anterior cingulate cortex function. Neuron, 79(2), 217-240. Cited in this article [3]

[39]	Shenhav, A., Fahey, M. F., Grahek, I. (2021). Decomposing the motivation to exert mental effort. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 30(4), 307-314. Cited in this article [6]

[40]	Shields, G. S., Sazma, M. A., & Yonelinas, A. P. (2016). The effects of acute stress on core executive functions: A meta-analysis and comparison with cortisol. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 68, 651-668. Cited in this article [1]

[41]	Soutschek, A., Stelzel, C., Paschke, L., Walter, H., & Schubert, T. (2015). Dissociable effects of motivation and expectancy on conflict processing: An fMRI study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 27(2), 409-423. Cited in this article [1]

[42]	Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18(6), 643-662. Cited in this article [1]

[43]	van den Berg, B., Krebs, R. M., Lorist, M. M., & Woldorff, M. G. (2014). Utilization of reward-prospect enhances preparatory attention and reduces stimulus conflict. Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience, 14(2), 561-577. Cited in this article [2]

[44]	Veling, H., & Aarts, H. (2010). Cueing task goals and earning money: Relatively high monetary rewards reduce failures to act on goals in a Stroop task. Motivation and Emotion, 34(2), 184-190. Cited in this article [4]

[45]	Westbrook, A., & Braver, T. S. (2016). Dopamine does double duty in motivating cognitive effort. Neuron, 89(4), 695-710. Cited in this article [1]

[46]	Yamaguchi, M., & Nishimura, A. (2019). Modulating proactive cognitive control by reward: Differential anticipatory effects of performance-contingent and non-contingent rewards. Psychological Research, 83(2), 258-274. Cited in this article [1]

[47]	Yee, D. M., & Braver, T. S. (2018). Interactions of motivation and cognitive control. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 19, 83-90. Cited in this article [2]

[48]	Zhang, J., Bürkner, P. C., Kiesel, A., & Dignath, D. (2023). How emotional stimuli modulate cognitive control: A meta-analytic review of studies with conflict tasks. Psychological Bulletin, 149(1-2), 25-66. Cited in this article [1]