When two become one: Electrocortical correlates of the integration of multiple action consequences

The reward positivity reflects the integrated value of temporally threefold‐layered decision outcomes

“…However, in the present study, we did not observe any substantive covariance between RewP responsivities to immediate and delayed outcome consequences and choice behavior. This is clearly in contrast to our previous and very similar study (Osinsky et al., 2018), where we observed such a relationship. However, the task itself is with its eight response options and three outcome dimensions rather difficult to learn and might promote exploration more than exploitation.…”

“…To extend our previous work (Osinsky et al., 2018), we also analyzed oscillatory correlates of multidimensional feedback processing. FMθ power has consistently been interpreted as a within network communication mechanism indicating increased need for cognitive control (for a review see Cavanagh & Frank, 2014).…”

“…The aim of this study was to shed new light on the relationship between such complex forms of feedback and electrophysiological indices of reward processing (cf. Osinsky et al., 2018), by increasing the feedback information content by a third temporal dimension. The results showed gradations in feedback‐related activity relative to valence of the three temporal outcome dimensions.…”

“…In this regard, an increasingly recognized question is the modulation of the RewP by the level of feedback information content as well as the subjective weighing of different information features in single‐ and multi‐step contexts (e.g., Cockburn & Holroyd, 2018). In particular, we recently introduced an adaptation of the so‐called doors task, in which each decision led to a singular outcome event with two interlaced layers of independent temporal consequences, that is, an immediate monetary consequence and a more delayed monetary consequence (Osinsky et al., 2018). Thus, the two consequences of each outcome could either converge (e.g., a positive immediate consequence and a positive delayed consequence) or diverge (e.g., a positive immediate consequence but a negative delayed consequence) with regard to their valence.…”

“…Contrary to that, early studies on the ΔRewP effect indicated that it corresponds to a simple dichotomous classification into good and bad outcomes (e.g., Gehring & Willoughby, 2002; Hajcak et al., 2006; Yeung & Sanfey, 2004). However, with an increase in complexity of experimental tasks later research repeatedly demonstrated that RewP amplitudes can mirror a more finely graded scaling of outcome values (e.g., Bellebaum et al., 2010; Frömer et al., 2016; Kreussel et al., 2012; Meadows et al., 2016; Osinsky et al., 2018; Osinsky et al., 2012; also see Sambrook & Goslin, 2015). For instance, hierarchical reinforcement learning has primarily been investigated with pseudo‐reward tasks where an overall goal depends on the success of various subgoals, and hence, involves multiple decision steps (e.g., Diuk et al., 2013; Ribas‐Fernandes et al., 2011, 2019).…”