Correct response negativity may reflect subjective value of reaction time under regulatory fit in a speed‐rewarded task

Abstract

Error-related negativity (ERN), an electroencephalogram (EEG) component following an erroneous response, has been associated with the subjective motivational relevance of error commission. A smaller EEG event, the correct response negativity (CRN), occurs after a correct response. It is unclear why correct behavior evokes a neural response similar to error commission. CRN might reflect suboptimal performance: in tasks where speed is motivationally relevant (i.e., incentivized), a correct but slow response may be experienced as a minor error. The literature is mixed on the relationship between CRN and response time (RT), possibly due to different motivational structures, tasks, or individual traits. We examined ERN and CRN in a go/no-go task where correctness and speed were encouraged using a pointsbased feedback system. A key individual trait, regulatory focus, describes a person's tendency to seek gains (promotion focus) and avoid losses (prevention focus). Trait regulatory focus was measured, and participants were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: points gain, points loss, and informative-only feedback. Participants committed too few errors to reliably model ERN effects. CRN amplitude related to RT in all feedback conditions, with slower responses having larger CRN. Participants with stronger promotion focus had a more exaggerated RT/CRN relationship in the point gain condition, suggesting that regulatory fit influences the motivational relevance of speed and thus the negative subjective experience and CRN for slower responses. These findings are consistent with the claim that CRN reflects RT when RT is motivationally relevant and that the CRN/RT relationship reflects the degree of subjective motivational relevance.

Combining Neural and Behavioral Measures Enhances Adaptive Training

“…SIFD is a non-adaptive training methodology. The SIFD condition data was acquired from a previous experiment (Files et al, 2021 ) with task parameters, equipment, and stimuli identical to the BAT/CAT conditions. The SFID condition represented a conventional approach to oddball training, and it served as a reasonable alternative to a no-contact control.…”

On the Comparison Between the Nc/CRN and the Ne/ERN

“…On surface potential recordings, the Ne and the Nc clearly present different distributions ( Vocat et al, 2008 ; Meckler et al, 2011 ; Endrass et al, 2012 ; Grützmann et al, 2014 ; Files et al, 2021 ). Vocat et al (2008) studied very finely the distributions of the Ne and the Nc.…”

“…Scalp potential distributions of the Nc and the Ne are definitely different ( Vocat et al, 2008 ; Meckler et al, 2011 ; Endrass et al, 2012 ; Grützmann et al, 2014 ; Files et al, 2021 ). However, the scalp distributions of the Ne (whether on errors or partial errors) and of the Nc are undistinguishable after Laplacian transformation (e.g., Vidal et al, 2000 ; Roger et al, 2010 ; Meckler et al, 2017 ).…”