Relevance and uncertainty jointly influence reward anticipation at the level of the SPN ERP component

Abstract

The stimulus-preceding negativity (SPN) component reflects the anticipatory phase of reward processing. Its amplitude is usually larger for informative compared to uninformative upcoming stimuli, as well as for uncertain relative to predictable ones. In this study, we sought to assess whether these two effects, when combined together, produced a synergistic effect or rather independent ones on the SPN during performance monitoring. Participants performed a speeded Go/NoGo task while 64-channel EEG was recorded concurrently. We focused on the SPN activity generated in anticipation of feedback, which was either positive (for correct and fast reactions) or negative (for correct but slow responses). Further, the feedback's informativeness about the satisfaction status of goals was alternated across blocks. When uncertainty about the action outcome was low (in conditions where positive feedback was either less or more frequent than negative feedback), the SPN amplitude (measured at fronto-central electrodes) did not vary as a function of feedback's relevance or valence. By comparison, when positive and negative feedback were equiprobable (uncertainty was high), the SPN was more pronounced for relevant compared to irrelevant feedback. Interestingly, in this condition, it was also larger at right fronto-central sites for positive than negative feedback. These ERP results suggest that both factors-relevance and uncertainty- combine and influence reward anticipation at the SPN level.

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

“…These supplementary results clearly showed that these FRN effects were not simply mirrored by earlier SPN effects occurring prior to feedback onset. In line with our previous study (Walentowska et al, ), we found that the SPN was larger (i.e., more negative) in anticipation of positive than negative feedback but exclusively when positive feedback had a high probability. These control analyses therefore support the interpretation that salience influenced feedback processing after its onset (at the FRN level) but not prior to it (at the SPN level).…”

“…A valid objection could be that expectancy or probability already shaped feedback processing before the onset of the FRN. To rule out this alternative account, we ran a set of auxiliary analyses during the prefeedback interval (see supporting information, Appendix ) where we focused on the stimulus‐preceding negativity (SPN) component, which is sensitive to reward anticipation (Brunia, ; Brunia, Hackley, van Boxtel, Kotani, & Ohgami, ; Brunia & van Boxtel, ) and feedback informativeness (Walentowska et al, ). These supplementary results clearly showed that these FRN effects were not simply mirrored by earlier SPN effects occurring prior to feedback onset.…”

Anterior insula activity and the effect of agency on the Stimulus‐Preceding Negativity

“…Confirming the results of all six previous experiments that examined the effect of agency on SPN (Chen et al, ; Masaki et al, ; Mei et al, ; Mühlberger et al, ; Walentowska et al, ; Yi et al, ), we found larger amplitudes when participants were encouraged to believe that their responses could influence trial outcomes. The effect was numerically largest at right, lateral prefrontal sites, just as it was in the three previous studies that portrayed the choice minus no‐choice difference topographically (Masaki et al, ; Mühlberger et al, ; Walentowska et al, ).…”

“…The finding of SPN enhancement during choice conditions, in which a sense of agency is engendered, as compared to no‐choice conditions has been replicated and extended (Chen et al, ; Mei, Yi, Zhou, Liu, & Zheng, ; Mühlberger, Angus, Jonas, Harmon‐Jones, & Harmon‐Jones, ; Walentowska, Paul, Severo, Moors, & Pourtois, ; Yi, Mei, Li, Liu, & Zheng, ). The present study was intended to test the hypothesis that anterior insula contributes to the SPN agency effect.…”

“…One is that previous source localization studies have identified this structure as one of the main generators of the SPN (event‐related fMRI: Kotani, Ohgami, Ishiwata, Arai, Kiryu, & Inouye, ; Seidel et al, ; Positron Emission Tomography or blocked fMRI: Brunia, de Jong, van den Berg‐Lenssen, & Paans, ; Tsukamoto et al, ; source modeling: Böcker, Brunia, & van den Berg‐Lenssen, ). Second, topographical analyses specifically indicate a maximum for the SPN choice effect at sites near the right anterior insula (Chen et al, ; Masaki et al, ; Mühlberger, Angus, Jonas, Harmon‐Jones, & Harmon‐Jones, ; Walentowska et al, ). Third, extensive prior fMRI research has linked insular cortex to the sense of agency (reviewed in Seghezzi, Zirone, Paulesu, & Zapparoli, ; Sperduti, Delaveau, Fossati, & Nadel, ).…”