The Variation of Amplitude in a Money‐Winning Paradigm in Children

Abstract

In the present study the influence on P300 amplitude of monetary payoff values linked to stimuli was investigated. Eight school boys (aged 11-13 yrs) were presented with random seriesof four equally frequent visual numeric stimuli (0, 2. 10. and 50). In the payoff condition (PC) subjects were told that each number would indicate the number of German pennies as a winning. In the no-payoff condition (NPC) subjects only had to attend to the stimuli. The amplitude ofa late positive component (P440-540) of the visual evoked potential (identified as a representation ofthe P300 in this age group) was significantly larger in PC than in NPC. The amplitude was also influenced by the amount of monetary payoff, being significantly largest after presentation of the "50' stimulus. Results are discussed in terms of the relevance of information provided by the stimulus, intemal categorization, and subjective probabilities ofthe stimuli.DESCRIPTORS: Event-related potentials in children, P300, Incentive value of stimuli, Money-winning paradigm.

The effect of graded monetary reward on cognitive event-related potentials and behavior in young healthy adults

“…Sensitivity of the P3 amplitude to reward magnitude is consistent with previous reports (Begleiter, Porjesz, Chou, & Aunon, 1983;Homberg, Grunewald, & Grunewald-Zuberbier, 1981;Otten, Gaillard, & Wientjes, 1995;Ramsey & Finn, 1997;Yeung & Sanfey, 2004). However, the precise mechanism underlying this effect is not yet well understood.…”

“…Stimuli with high emotional value, informative feedback stimuli, and target stimuli also elicit larger P3s than stimuli that do not have these properties (Johnson, 1988;Picton, 1992;Pritchard, 1981). We therefore expected the P3 to be elicited by monetary feedback manipulation; indeed the P3's involvement in monetary reward, and specifically in marking reward's magnitude, has been previously documented (Begleiter, Porjesz, Chou, & Aunon, 1983;Homberg, Grunewald, & Grunewald-Zuberbier, 1981;Otten, Gaillard, & Wientjes, 1995;Ramsey & Finn, 1997;Yeung & Sanfey, 2004). For example, Ramsey and Finn (1997) used a visual discrimination task where subjects were instructed to respond to target stimuli in a neutral condition (no monetary incentive) vs. an incentive condition (monetary gain of 50 cents for correct responses and loss of 50 cents for incorrect responses).…”

Event-related brain potentials and affective responses to threat in spider/snake-phobic and non-phobic subjects

“…Furthermore, P3 amplitude has been shown to be sensitive to the amount of subjects' intentional engagement towards a stimulus and its demand characteristics (Johnson, 1986). Finally, and most important for the present study, it was shown that P3 amplitude is systematically affected by the individual meaning of a stimulus, i.e., by its emotional arousal and individual valence (Begleiter et al, 1967;Hö mberg et al, 1981;Johnston et al, 1986;Farwell and Donchin, 1991;Naumann et al, 1997;Palomba et al, 1997;Schupp et al, 2000). These studies consistently indicate that P3 and LPC amplitudes are largest in response to those stimuli that subjects rate as emotionally meaningful and arousing.…”

Vigilance, alertness, or sustained attention: physiological basis and measurement

“…Performing a task with a high financial reward for performance will engage the attentional system stronger and with longer duration than performing the same task with no overt reward for performance. The P3 amplitude is increased with financial incentives for performance (Begleiter et al, 1983;Hömberg et al, 1981). Conceptually, effort (Kahneman, 1973) and motivation are related.…”