The platform will undergo maintenance on Sep 14 at about 7:45 AM EST and will be unavailable for approximately 2 hours.
2017
DOI: 10.1111/psyp.12813
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Reliability of the electrocortical response to gains and losses in the doors task

Abstract: The ability to differentiate between rewards and losses is critical for motivated action, and aberrant reward and loss processing has been associated with psychopathology. The reward positivity (RewP) and feedback negativity (FN) are ERPs elicited by monetary gains and losses, respectively, and are promising individual difference measures. However, few studies have reported on the psychometric properties of the RewP and FN-crucial characteristics necessary for valid individual difference measures. The current … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

19
92
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

3
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 109 publications
(111 citation statements)
references
References 46 publications
19
92
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In other words, receiving acceptance feedback from a co-player after voting to keep that player, and receiving acceptance feedback after voting to kick that player out may represent distinct psychological processes. The limited number of trials in the present study, however, did not allow for sufficient data to evaluate a stable RewP in each of these conditions (Levinson, Speed, Infantolino, & Hajcak, 2017). …”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 88%
“…In other words, receiving acceptance feedback from a co-player after voting to keep that player, and receiving acceptance feedback after voting to kick that player out may represent distinct psychological processes. The limited number of trials in the present study, however, did not allow for sufficient data to evaluate a stable RewP in each of these conditions (Levinson, Speed, Infantolino, & Hajcak, 2017). …”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 88%
“…Unfortunately, the current task does not include enough trials to test this possibility. In addition, because participants’ voting behavior varied considerably across individuals and recent evidence suggest that approximately 10 to 15 trials are needed for a stable measure of RewP (Levinson, Speed, Infantolino, & Hajcak, 2017), the majority of participants did not have sufficient trials to reliably evaluate ERP responses to positive and negative feedback as a function of participant votes (e.g., more desirable vs. less desirable peers). Future work is needed to apply alternative statistical approaches or develop modified versions of this task that may provide insight into the effects of expectancy and participant votes on ERP measures.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Attention bias measures have notoriously poor psychometric properties (Cisler, Bacon, & Williams, 2009; Price et al, 2015; Rodebaugh et al, 2016), and it is possible that unreliability in the measurement of attention bias may at least partially contribute to these discrepant findings. It is important to note that the present study utilized a regression-based approach for examining change in attention bias, and this analytic approach generally does not attenuate the reliability of a measure to the same degree as difference scores (Levinson, Speed, Infantolino, & Hajcak, 2017; Meyer, Lerner, Reyes, Laird, & Hajcak, 2017). Therefore, it is possible that other factors beyond poor psychometric properties may have influenced the pattern of results.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%