Goal relevance influences performance monitoring at the level of the FRN and P3 components

Abstract

The Feedback-Related Negativity (FRN) provides a reliable ERP marker of performance monitoring (PM). It is usually larger for negative compared to positive feedback, and for unexpected relative to expected feedback. In two experiments, we assessed whether these effects could be modulated by goal relevance, defined as feedback informativeness (reliability) and/or impact on a person's goals. 64-channels EEG was recorded while 30 participants (in each experiment) performed a speeded Go/NoGo task across blocks in which the feedback on task performance was deemed either relevant or not. At the ERP level, the FRN component was larger for (frequent) negative compared to (deviant) positive feedback exclusively when the feedback was relevant (Experiment 1). When the probability of positive and negative feedback was balanced (Experiment 2), this valence-driven FRN effect was absent. However, across these two experiments, the FRN was always larger for irrelevant than relevant feedback. Moreover, the subsequent P300 component was larger for feedback in the relevant than the irrelevant blocks. This effect was valence-unspecific in Experiment 1, while in Experiment 2 larger P3 amplitudes were recorded for negative than positive (relevant) feedback. Across the two experiments, a larger Correct-Related Negativity (CRN) in the irrelevant than relevant context was also observed, suggesting that PM is flexible.These ERP findings indicate that goal relevance influences feedback (and response) processing during PM, with two non-overlapping neurophysiological effects: It gates reward prediction error brain mechanisms (FRN effect), before enhancing subsequent motivational processes (P300 effect).

Modulatory effects of happy mood on performance monitoring: Insights from error-related brain potentials

“…However, this result was not unexpected, but very much in line with previous ERP studies using the same speeded Go/NoGo task with a very strict time pressure and updated RT deadline (Vocat et al, 2008). These conditions necessarily increased uncertainty at the time of key press given that performance was based on both accuracy and speed (Walentowska et al, 2016). As a matter of fact, (enhanced) uncertainty also increases the CRN component (Coles et al, 2001;Falkenstein et al, 2000;Gehring et al, 1993).…”

“…Noteworthy, the lack of group differences at the behavioral level (speed and accuracy) was not odd in the present case, but expected given the specifics of the Go/NoGo task used. Since the RT deadline was calibrated and updated at the single subject level, it inevitably led to a comparable number of response errors (and balanced speed) between the two groups, as already reported in previous studies using the same task and between-subjects experimental design (see Aarts & Pourtois, 2010;Aarts et al, 2013;Koban, Brass, Lynn, & Pourtois, 2012;Rigoni, Pourtois, & Brass, 2015;Walentowska, Moors, Paul, & Pourtois, 2016).…”

The neural dynamics underlying the interpersonal effects of emotional expression on decision making

“…Relevant to the current study, the difference between happy and angry expressions was examined. In this regard, the previous studies showed larger EPN59, larger P3b and SPW59 for angry faces than for happy faces, but smaller N2 for angry faces than for happy faces when faces were presented in a trust-varied context73. For conciseness, following previous studies3258, the current study merged the analysis on FRN and N2, and the analysis on feedback-related P300 and P3b, given that the FRN is a special instance of the N2 component74757677 and the feedback-related P300 belongs to P300 family40414243.…”

“…The extracted average waveforms for each participant and condition were used to calculate grand-average waveforms. For statistical analyses, three different clusters of scalp sites were formed to evaluate the components peaking in different regions59: fronto-central (electrodes: F1, Fz, F2, FC1, FCz, FC2, FCz, C1, Cz, C2), occipito-temporal (left: TP7, P7, PO7, and right: TP8, P8, PO8), and parietal (P1, Pz, P2, PO3, POz, PO4). Then, based on the inspection of visual peaks for the current data, the mean amplitude in the fronto-central cluster was calculated for the interval between 180 and 220 ms for the VPP, between 220 and 280 ms for the N2/FRN, and between 600 and 800 ms for the SPW.…”

“…However, the inherent ERP components linking with emotional expression processing seemed to be inevitable since the feedback in the current study consists of emotional and utilitarian cues. Therefore, the well-known components in the processing of emotional displays, particularly facial expressions5960 were also analyzed. Those components include occipito-temporal N17059616263 and fronto-central vertex positive potential (VPP)59636465 reflecting attentional capture by emotion, occipito-temporal early posterior negativity (EPN)616667 and fronto-central N259686970 indexing affective discrimination, parietal P300 reflecting sustained attention and elaborative categorization processes5960617172, and fronto-central slow positive wave (SPW) linking with response selection and decision5966.…”