The influence of the magnitude, probability, and valence of potential wins and losses on the amplitude of the feedback negativity

Abstract

We assessed the influence of the variables outcome potential, feedback valence, magnitude, and probability on the amplitude of the feedback negativity (FN). Outcome potential was defined as the a priori valence of an upcoming feedback, that is, is there a potential win or potential loss? All these variables have been studied previously, although never together, but the findings have been contradictory. We analyzed the event-related potential (ERP) after feedback presentation in a reinforcement-learning task to examine the effects of all the variables on feedback negativity. Our results show that outcome potential, feedback valence, probability, and magnitude all influence feedback related ERPs. Taken together, the findings suggest that ERPs in the time range of the feedback negativity are primarily driven by positive outcomes (reinforcement) rather than negative outcomes (punishment).

The effects of reward magnitude on reward processing: An averaged and single trial event-related potential study

“…Indeed, a few recent studies have employed such tasks and observed valence by magnitude interactions (Bellebaum, Polezzi, & Daum, 2010;Gu et al, 2011;Kreussel et al, 2012;Luque, Morís, Rushby, & Le Pelley, 2015;Weinberg, Riesel, & Proudfit, 2014), although an earlier study by Sato et al (2005) did not reveal a valence by magnitude interaction.…”

A neural reward prediction error revealed by a meta-analysis of ERPs using great grand averages.

“…Bunzeck, Dayan, Dolan, and Duzel (2010) found a similar scaling effect in a study of humans using fMRI. Schultz (2009) the FRN is accentuated when measured in the gain rather than loss domain (Kreussel et al, 2012;Kujawa, Smith, Luhmann, & Hajcak, 2013;Mushtaq, Stoet, Bland, & Schaefer, 2013;Sambrook, Roser, & Goslin, 2012;Yu & Zhang, 2014). This suggests the possibility of a neural dissociation of how outcomes are processed in gain and loss domains that is of broad 14 theoretical interest, not least because this reduced sensitivity for outcomes in the loss domain, or "loss indifference", is in direct opposition to the prediction of loss aversion made by prospect theory.…”

A Single-Trial Estimation of the Feedback-Related Negativity and Its Relation to BOLD Responses in a Time-Estimation Task

“…Inspired by a theoretical framework stemming from research on the reward circuit (Haber and Knutson, 2010), the former usually report excess activation of positive relative to negative feedback, whereas the latter often assume positive feedback to be the baseline for negative feedback events (Holroyd and Coles, 2002). However, recent research has emphasized the role of positive, rewarding feedback in elicitation of the FRN/FRP in trial-averaged data (Baker and Holroyd, 2011;Carlson et al, 2011;Kreussel et al, 2012;Bress and Hajcak, 2013), and our approach might prove useful for distinguishing the relative contributions of rewards and nonrewards to gradations of feedback-related scalp potentials in other protocols. As the FRN has been shown to become larger with less frequent feedback, we successfully equalized feedback presentation frequencies across conditions in this protocol.…”

“…This finding lends further credence to the assumption that the FRN/FRP indexes the neuronal correlates of reward processing in frontostriatal networks, as implied by the extensive literature on the neuroscience of reward and punishment processing (e.g., Haber and Knutson, 2010) and the findings of Carlson et al (2011). The ventral striatum, and more specifically the nucleus accumbens, represents a structure that is an integral part of the so-called reward circuit; consequently, its activation is most often reported in the context of reward (Liu et al, 2011). If the FRN is indeed a reward positivity, coupling of the electrophysiological scalp signatures and the BOLD signal time course of the ventral striatum should be positively associated with the magnitude of amplitudes and reliably detectable specifically during positive feedback.…”