Goal impact influences the evaluative component of performance monitoring: Evidence from ERPs

Abstract

Successful performance monitoring (PM) requires continuous assessment of context and action outcomes. Electrophysiological studies have reliably identified event-related potential (ERP) markers for evaluative feedback processing during PM: the Feedback-Related Negativity (FRN) and P3 components. The functional significance of FRN remains debated in the literature, with recent research suggesting that feedback's goal relevance can account for FRN (amplitude) modulation, apart from its valence or expectedness alone. Extending this account, the present study assessed whether graded differentiations in feedback's relevance or importance to one's goal (referred to as goal impact) would influence PM at the FRN (and P3) level. To this end, we ran a within-subject crossover design experiment in which 40 participants completed two standard cognitive control tasks (Go/No Go and Simon), while 64-channel electroencephalography was recorded. Critically, both tasks entailed similar reward processing but systematically varied in goal impact assignment (high vs. low), manipulated through their supposed diagnosticity for daily life functioning and activation of social comparison. ERP results showed that goal impact reliably modulated FRN in a general manner. Irrespective of feedback valence, it was overall less negative in the high compared to the low impact condition, suggesting a general decrease in feedback monitoring in the former compared to the latter condition. These findings lend support to the idea that PM is best conceived operating not solely based on motor cues, but is shaped by motivational demands.

When the outcome is different than expected: Subjective expectancy shapes reward prediction error at the FRN level

“…Relevance was understood in this study as the degree to which a stimulus was informative about the satisfaction status of pursued goals (see also Moors, 2007). Moreover, in another recent EEG study, we found evidence that goal relevance understood as impact increased the P3b during PM (Severo et al, 2017. Impact corresponded to the amount of goal satisfaction that was signaled by the feedback stimulus.…”

“…for each type of feedback separately; and (h) low-pass digital filtering of the individual average data (30 Hz). 4 In accordance with previous ERP studies focused on feedback-based PM (Aarts & Pourtois, 2012;Bismark, Hajcak, Whitworth, & Allen, 2013;Ferdinand et al, 2012;Fischer & Ullsperger, 2013;Pfabigan et al, 2011;Severo et al, 2017Severo et al, , 2018von Borries et al, 2013;Walentowska et al, 2016;Walsh & Anderson, 2012) as well as the electrophysiological properties of the current data set (see Figure 3), the FRN was defined as the mean voltage within 250-300 ms after feedback onset over frontal and frontocentral electrodes along the midline (Fz and FCz pooled together). The P3b amplitude was measured as a mean voltage between 350 and 600 ms after feedback onset at centroparietal and parietal electrodes (CPz and Pz pooled together).…”

“…A speeded go/no-go task, which was previously validated in different EEG studies (Aarts & Pourtois, 2012;Koban et al, 2012;Severo et al, 2017Severo et al, , 2018Vocat et al, 2008;Walentowska et al, 2016Walentowska et al, , 2018, was used in the current study. Cues, targets, and nontargets consisted of an arrow presented in the center of the screen against a white background.…”

“…Usually, a larger P3b is observed for unexpected than expected action outcomes (von Borries et al, 2013). In addition to unexpectedness, it is typically found that negative feedback gives rise to a larger P3b than positive feedback (de Bruijn, Mars, & Hulstijn, 2004;Fischer & Ullsperger, 2013;Walentowska, Moors, Paul, & Pourtois, 2016; but see Hajcak et al, 2007;Severo, Walentowska, Moors, & Pourtois, 2017, for a reversed pattern, as well as Yeung & Sanfey, 2004, for the lack of a valence effect), suggesting that action value updating likely depends on both expectedness and valence as well as on the context within which this updating takes place. The second goal of our study was to assess action value updating at the P3b level when different combinations of reward probability and expectancy were created and compared.…”

“…In the current study, participants performed a speeded go/ no-go task that was previously used and validated extensively in different EEG studies in the past (e.g., Aarts & Pourtois, 2012;Koban, Pourtois, Bediou, & Vuilleumier, 2012;Severo et al, 2017Severo et al, , 2018Vocat, Pourtois, & Vuilleumier, 2008;Walentowska et al, 2016;Walentowska, Paul, Severo, Moors, & Pourtois, 2018). We chose this specific task setting as it allowed us to introduce subtle variations in reward probability across different blocks without changing the stimuli or task demands between them.…”