Learning‐related changes in reward expectancy are reflected in the feedback‐related negativity

Abstract

The feedback-related negativity (FRN) has been hypothesized to be linked to reward-based learning. While many studies have shown that the FRN only occurs in response to unexpected negative outcomes, the relationship between the magnitude of negative prediction errors and FRN amplitude remains a matter of debate. The present study aimed to elucidate this relationship with a new behavioural procedure that allowed subjects to predict precise reward probabilities by learning an explicit rule. Insight into the rule did not only influence subjects' choice behaviour, but also outcome-related event-related potentials. After subjects had learned the rule, the FRN amplitude difference between non-reward and reward mirrored the magnitude of the negative prediction error, i.e. it was larger for less likely negative outcomes. Source analysis linked this effect to the anterior cingulate cortex. P300 amplitude was also modulated by outcome valence and expectancy. It was larger for positive and unexpected outcomes. It remains to be clarified, however, whether the P300 reflects a positive prediction error.

The Processing of Unexpected Positive Response Outcomes in the Mediofrontal Cortex

“…When asked about feedback frequencies, 11 of 20 participants believed that positive feedback had been less frequent than negative feedback, while only four subjects believed the opposite. Although previous studies examining reward processing have led to inconsistent results, linking the P300 to reward magnitude regardless of valence (Yeung and Sanfey, 2004;Sato et al, 2005) or negative valence (Frank, 2005), the present results are in line with findings that P300 is larger after positive events (Hajcak et al, 2007;Bellebaum and Daum, 2008).…”

“…Rather, our concern is with the differing predictions the theories make about the functional properties of the FRN response. We additionally examined another ERP correlate of performance moni-toring, the P300, which has been shown to vary with the frequency and valence of feedback stimuli (Bellebaum and Daum, 2008). For this purpose, the electroencephalogram was recorded during a time-estimation task with positive, negative, and intermediate feedback.…”

When decisions of others matter to me: an electrophysiological analysis

“…In particular, empathy has been shown to be modulated by gender [5,36], fairness [5] and emotional sensitivity towards others [4,5,37]. On the other hand, the evaluative component could be modulated by other factors, such as magnitude [38], probability [39] or amount of information provided by the feedback [40]. Importantly, in the reverse condition the two components would compete: whereas the empathic component would lead to an FRN in response to the other's loss, the evaluative component would trigger an FRN to one's own loss (i.e.…”

Face-induced expectancies influence neural mechanisms of performance monitoring

“…Previous research has repeatedly demonstrated that neural mechanisms involved in such performance monitoring functions are subject to action-outcome expectancies. In particular, numerous recent studies have shown that electrocortical correlates of performance monitoring in the scalp-recorded electroencephalogram (EEG) are sensitive to the predictive value of cue stimuli preceding action outcomes (e.g., Bellebaum & Daum, 2008;Chase, Swainson, Durham, Benham, & Cools, 2011;Hauser et al, 2014;Hewig et al, 2007;Martin & Potts, 2011;Mas-Herrero & Marco-Pallarés, 2014;Pfabigan, Alexopoulos, Bauer, & Sailer, 2011;Pfabigan et al, 2015;Potts, Martin, Burton, & Montague, 2006;Walsh & Anderson, 2011;Wu & Zhou, 2009;Xu et al, 2011). In the majority of these studies, the indicative cues were simple visual stimuli like, for instance, geometrical shapes, letters, or colors.…”