Cardiac and electro-cortical concomitants of social feedback processing in women

Dekkers, Laura M. S.; Molen, Melle J. W. van der; Moor, Bregtje Gunther; Veen, Frederik M. van der; Molen, Maurits W. van der

doi:10.1093/scan/nsv039

Cited by 35 publications

(72 citation statements)

References 57 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Following the task, participants complete a self-report measure of task engagement. Our initial pilot study ( N = 19) indicated that an enhanced RewP was observable following social acceptance feedback, a pattern that has also been observed in adult studies of social feedback processing (Dekkers, van der Molen, Moor, van der Veen, & van der Molen, 2014; van der Molen, Dekkers, Westenberg, van der Veen, & van der Molen, 2016). Moreover, our preliminary correlations indicated that this task may be useful for examining effects of depression and social anxiety on social feedback processing.…”

supporting

confidence: 70%

Social processing in early adolescence: Associations between neurophysiological, self-report, and behavioral measures

Kujawa

Kessel

Carroll

et al. 2017

Biological Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Peer relationships play a major role in adolescent development, but few methods exist for measuring social processing at the neurophysiological level. This study extends our pilot study of Island Getaway, a task for eliciting event-related potentials (ERPs) to peer feedback. We differentiated ERPs using principal components analysis (PCA) and examined associations with behavioral and self-report measures in young adolescents (N = 412). PCA revealed an early negativity in the ERP enhanced for rejection feedback, followed by a series of positivities (consistent with reward positivity [RewP], P300, and late positive potential) that were enhanced for acceptance feedback. Greater self-reported task engagement correlated with a larger RewP to acceptance and lower rates of rejecting peers. Youth higher in depressive symptoms exhibited a blunted RewP to social acceptance and reported lower engagement. Results highlight ERP components sensitive to peer feedback that may inform understanding of social processes relevant to typical and atypical development.

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 70%

Social processing in early adolescence: Associations between neurophysiological, self-report, and behavioral measures

Kujawa

Kessel

Carroll

et al. 2017

Biological Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…That is, the FRN is larger in amplitude for feedback that is incongruent with individuals' prior expectancies about the feedback outcome. Although it has been frequently observed that the FRN is larger for feedback that is worse than expected (Gehring & Willoughby, 2002), our two previous ERP studies revealed that FRN was larger for unexpected vs. expected feedback in the SJP (Dekkers, Van der Molen, Gunther Moor, Van der Veen, & Van der Molen, 2015;. It should be acknowledged, however, that these ERP analyses did not capture all relevant information that is contained in the EEG.…”

Section: Introductioncontrasting

confidence: 60%

Why don't you like me? Midfrontal theta power in response to unexpected peer rejection feedback

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social connectedness theory posits that the brain processes social rejection as a threat to survival. Recent electrophysiological evidence suggests that midfrontal theta (4-8Hz) oscillations in the EEG provide a window on the processing of social rejection. Here we examined midfrontal theta dynamics (power and inter-trial phase synchrony) during the processing of social evaluative feedback. We employed the Social Judgment paradigm in which 56 undergraduate women (mean age=19.67 years) were asked to communicate their expectancies about being liked vs. disliked by unknown peers. Expectancies were followed by feedback indicating social acceptance vs. rejection. Results revealed a significant increase in EEG theta power to unexpected social rejection feedback. This EEG theta response could be source-localized to brain regions typically reported during activation of the saliency network (i.e., dorsal anterior cingulate cortex, insula, inferior frontal gyrus, frontal pole, and the supplementary motor area). Theta phase dynamics mimicked the behavior of the time-domain averaged feedback-related negativity (FRN) by showing stronger phase synchrony for feedback that was unexpected vs. expected. Theta phase, however, differed from the FRN by also displaying stronger phase synchrony in response to rejection vs. acceptance feedback. Together, this study highlights distinct roles for midfrontal theta power and phase synchrony in response to social evaluative feedback. Our findings contribute to the literature by showing that midfrontal theta oscillatory power is sensitive to social rejection but only when peer rejection is unexpected, and this theta response is governed by a widely distributed neural network implicated in saliency detection and conflict monitoring.

show abstract

“…Thereby, effects of social evaluation (acceptance vs. rejection) and expectancy (expected vs. unexpected outcomes) were manipulated. Early feedback evaluation (FRN component) was mostly sensitive to expectancy violations (Dekkers, Van Der Molen, Gunther Moor, Van Der Veen, & Van Der Molen, 2015; Van Der Molen, Dekkers, Westenberg, Van Der Veen, & Van Der Molen, 2016;Van Der Veen, Van Der Molen, Van Der Molen, & Franken, 2016), while later ERP processing stages (P300 component) reflected expected acceptance judgements (Van Der Veen, Van Der Molen, Sahibdin, & Franken, 2014; or general expectancy effects (Dekkers et al, 2015). In task versions that omitted the expectancy manipulation, early feedback evaluation was also reflecting acceptance vs. rejection judgements (Kujawa et al, 2014;Sun & Yu, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Concerning stimulus complexity, we had no directional hypothesis. We further hypothesized that P300 amplitudes would be sensitive to feedback valence and social dimension (Bellebaum & Daum, 2008;Dekkers et al, 2015;Pfabigan et al, 2015;Van Der Veen et al, 2014. Larger P300 amplitudes were expected after positive compared to negative, and after social compared to non-social feedback.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…In task versions that omitted the expectancy manipulation, early feedback evaluation was also reflecting acceptance vs. rejection judgements (Kujawa et al, 2014;Sun & Yu, 2014). Moreover, Dekkers et al (2015) presented the same feedback stimuli in a social and a non-social judgement condition. The authors observed that only later feedback processing phases were sensitive to the social dimension manipulation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Social dimension and complexity differentially influence brain responses during feedback processing

Pfabigan

Gittenberger

Lamm

2017

Social Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent research emphasizes the importance of social factors during performance monitoring. Thus, the current study investigated the impact of social stimuli -such as communicative gestures- on feedback processing. Moreover, it addressed a shortcoming of previous studies, which failed to consider stimulus complexity as potential confounding factor. Twenty-four volunteers performed a time estimation task while their electroencephalogram was recorded. Either social complex, social non-complex, non-social complex, or non-social non-complex stimuli were used to provide performance feedback. No effects of social dimension or complexity were found for task performance. In contrast, Feedback-Related Negativity (FRN) and P300 amplitudes were sensitive to both factors, with larger FRN and P300 amplitudes after social compared to non-social stimuli, and larger FRN amplitudes after complex positive than non-complex positive stimuli. P2 amplitudes were solely sensitive to feedback valence and social dimension. Subjectively, social complex stimuli were rated as more motivating than non-social complex ones. Independently of each other, social dimension and visual complexity influenced amplitude variation during performance monitoring. Social stimuli seem to be perceived as more salient, which is corroborated by P2, FRN and P300 results, as well as by subjective ratings. This could be explained due to their given relevance during every day social interactions.

show abstract

Cardiac and electro-cortical concomitants of social feedback processing in women

Cited by 35 publications

References 57 publications

Social processing in early adolescence: Associations between neurophysiological, self-report, and behavioral measures

Social processing in early adolescence: Associations between neurophysiological, self-report, and behavioral measures

Why don't you like me? Midfrontal theta power in response to unexpected peer rejection feedback

Social dimension and complexity differentially influence brain responses during feedback processing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About