Does the Processing of Sensory and Reward-Prediction Errors Involve Common Neural Resources? Evidence from a Frontocentral Negative Potential Modulated by Movement Execution Errors

Abstract

In humans, electrophysiological correlates of error processing have been extensively investigated in relation to decision-making theories. In particular, error-related ERPs have been most often studied using response selection tasks. In these tasks, involving very simple motor responses (e.g., button press), errors concern inappropriate action-selection only. However, EEG activity in relation to inaccurate movement-execution in more complex motor tasks has been much less examined. In the present study, we recorded EEG while volunteers performed reaching movements in a force-field created by a robotic device. Hand-path deviations were induced by interspersing catch trials in which the force condition was unpredictably altered. Our goal was twofold. First, we wanted to determine whether a frontocentral ERP was elicited by sensory-prediction errors, whose amplitude reflected the size of kinematic errors. Then, we explored whether common neural processes could be involved in the generation of this ERP and the feedback-related negativity (FRN), often assumed to reflect reward-prediction errors. We identified a frontocentral negativity whose amplitude was modulated by the size of the hand-path deviations induced by the unpredictable mechanical perturbations. This kinematic error-related ERP presented great similarities in terms of time course, topography, and potential source-location with the FRN recorded in the same experiment. These findings suggest that the processing of sensory-prediction errors and the processing of reward-prediction errors could involve a shared neural network.

Brain Responses to Errors During 3D Motion in a Hapto-Visual VR

“…The increase in peak-to-peak amplitude of the haptic interface error related ERP as function of the increase in magnitude of disturbance is in line with previous work on disturbed continuous reaching tasks under the influence of a force field and with no online correction [34]. Kinematic errors are defined by the magnitude of deviation from planed hand-path under influence of an unexpected force field change [34].…”

“…Kinematic errors are defined by the magnitude of deviation from planed hand-path under influence of an unexpected force field change [34]. The amplitude of ERP evoked by kinematic errors was shown to be correlated with error amplitude [34]. Similarly, in cognitive tasks ERN was shown to increase when the correct and incorrect responses were more distinct [9].…”

“…Kinematic errors are defined by the magnitude of deviation from planed hand-path under influence of an unexpected force field change [34]. The amplitude of ERP evoked by kinematic errors was shown to be correlated with error amplitude [34].…”

Self-evaluation of decision-making: A general Bayesian framework for metacognitive computation.

“…In practice, however, even simple actions are constructed by specifying the kinematics and forces needed to produce a particular motor output. Indeed, individuals have been shown to take action kinematics into consideration when judging the confidence of another individual (Patel et al, 2012), and the specifics of action planning impacts upon error-related brain activity (Bernstein, Scheffers, & Coles, 1995; Torrecillos, Albouy, Brochier, & Malfait, 2014). An interesting avenue for future investigation is the extent to which this richness of action specification is incorporated into decision confidence, and how this information is routed to metacognitive computations.…”

The role of prediction and outcomes in adaptive cognitive control

“…Importantly, this neural signature should be present even if these subgoals are not directly related to primary reward (cf. Torrecillos et al, 2014). It is not yet conclusively established that striatal prediction errors are observed when subjects fail to reach anticipated subgoals (end states of options) that never entail reward delivery, and do not change the overall estimate of reward likelihood.…”