It Was Not MY Fault: Event-Related Brain Potentials in Active and Observational Learning from Feedback

Abstract

Performance feedback during learning is accompanied by a negative event-related potentials (ERP) component, the feedback-related negativity (FRN), which codes a reward prediction error. An open issue relates to the coding of feedback stimuli in observational learning. The present study aimed to determine differences in the neural processing of feedback in active and observational learners in a between-subjects design. By choosing between different stimuli, 15 active learners could learn a rule determining the probability of monetary reward. Each of the 15 observers was yoked to the performance of one active learner. In test trials, observers could prove whether they had gained insight into the rule. Although both groups learned at a comparable rate, FRN amplitudes following negative feedback were significantly reduced in observational relative to active learners, whereas there was no difference for the FRN in response to positive feedback. Additionally, between-group differences were already observed in the time window preceding the FRN, between 150 and 220 ms after feedback onset. The processing of feedback stimuli thus depends upon the direct relevance for one's own action planning. The FRN as an error signal indicating the need for behavioral adaptation appears to be especially relevant, if negative feedback is linked to agency.

Effects of social context and predictive relevance on action outcome monitoring

“…With regard to the role of agency in performance monitoring, we found a larger FRN for one's own than for observed performance feedback. This effect corroborates previous results (Bellebaum, et al, 2010;Fukushima & Hiraki, 2009;Leng & Zhou, 2010;Yu & Zhou, 2006). As proposed by Bellebaum et al (2010), it is likely that such agency-related enhancement results from the higher personal relevance of feedback about one's own performance, and is consistent with a greater importance of such feedback in terms of subsequent behavioral adjustment (Holroyd & Coles, 2002;Ridderinkhof, Ullsperger, Crone, & Nieuwenhuis, 2004).…”

“…Thus, observing errors made by others also elicits a negative ERP, the observer ERN (oERN), whose topography and sources resemble the ERN but with delayed latencies (Bates, Patel, & Liddle, 2005;Carp, Halenar, Quandt, Sklar, & Compton, 2009;Koban, Pourtois, Vocat, & Vuilleumier, 2010;Miltner, Brauer, Hecht, Trippe, & Coles, 2004;van Schie, Mars, Coles, & Bekkering, 2004). Likewise, an observer FRN (oFRN) can be measured during the same time-window as the classical FRN (around 200-300 ms), but with smaller amplitudes for observers than agents of actions (Fukushima & Hiraki, 2009;Leng & Zhou, 2010;Yu & Zhou, 2006), possibly reflecting a decreased saliency of other-generated errors relative to one's own (Bellebaum, Kobza, Thiele, & Daum, 2010). Unlike the oERN (to the best of our knowledge), the neural sources of the oFRN have not been investigated yet.…”

Brain potentials in outcome evaluation: When social comparison takes effect

“…However, other studies reported reduced FRN amplitudes in observation conditions (Bellebaum et al, 2010a;Fukushima and Hiraki, 2009;Itagaki and Katayama, 2008). It should be noted that in all previous studies examining feedback processing in an observation condition, the positive (e.g., gains or correct) or negative (e.g., losses or incorrect) feedback for the choice made on each trial represented only one player's outcome, either the participant's outcome or the observer's.…”

Brain systems underlying the affective and social monitoring of actions: An integrative review

“…Monitoring others' actions may enable us to interact efficiently during joint action (Sebanz et al, 2006a;Vesper et al, 2010) and to learn by observation (Bellebaum et al, 2010;van Schie et al, 2004). Yet, an unresolved question concerns the processes that allow the attribution of error agency.…”