Brain potentials associated with expected and unexpected good and bad outcomes (original) (raw)
Related papers
Psychophysiology, 2011
The feedback-related negativity (FRN) has been hypothesized to be most sensitive to unexpected negative feedback. The present study investigated feedback expectancy and valence using a probabilistic gambling paradigm where subjects encountered expected or unexpected positive and negative feedback outcomes. In line with previous studies, FRN amplitude reflected a negative reward prediction error, but to a minor extent also a positive reward prediction error. Moreover, the P300 amplitude was largest after unexpected feedback, irrespective of valence. We propose to interpret the FRN in terms of a reinforcement learning signal which is detecting mismatch between internal and external representations indexed by the ACC to extract motivationally salient outcomes.
Effects of value and reward magnitude on feedback negativity and P300
NeuroReport, 2005
Feedback negativity is a negative component of the event-related brain potential observed 250^300 ms after feedback stimuli. The present study investigated the e¡ects of value (correct or incorrect) and reward magnitude (no, small or large) on feedback negativity and P300.Feedback negativity was larger after incorrect feedback than after correct feedback, irrespective of reward magnitude. In contrast, P300 amplitude increased with reward magnitude, irrespective of value. The amplitude of feedback negativity was correlated with a trait score of negative a¡ect and not positive a¡ect, whereas P300 amplitude was correlated with positive a¡ect and not negative a¡ect. These results suggest that value and reward magnitude are processed separately in the brain. NeuroReport 16:407^411
Psychophysiology, 2008
The N200 and the feedback error-related negativity (fERN) are two components of the event-related brain potential (ERP) that share similar scalp distributions, time courses, morphologies, and functional dependencies, which raises the question as to whether they are actually the same phenomenon. To investigate this issue, we recorded the ERP from participants engaged in two tasks that independently elicited the N200 and fERN. Our results indicate that they are, in fact, the same ERP component and further suggest that positive feedback elicits a positive-going deflection in the time range of the fERN. Taken together, these results indicate that negative feedback elicits a common N200 and that modulation of fERN amplitude results from the superposition on correct trials of a positive-going deflection that we term the feedback correct-related positivity.
This ought to be good: Brain activity accompanying positive and negative expectations and outcomes
Psychophysiology, 2011
The current study employed a modified gambling task, in which probabilistic cues were provided to elicit positive or negative expectations. Event-related potentials (ERPs) to “final outcome” and “probabilistic cues” were analyzed. Difference waves between the negative condition and the corresponding positive condition were examined. The results confirm that feedback related negativity (FRN) amplitude is modulated by the interaction of outcome valence and expectancy by showing larger FRN difference waves for unexpected than expected outcomes. More interestingly, the difference wave between ERPs elicited by positive and negative expectations showed a negative deflection, with a frontal midline source density around 280 ms after onset of the predictive cue. Negative expectations were associated with larger FRN amplitudes than positive expectations. This suggests that FRN is elicited by probabilistic cues to pending outcomes.
European Journal of Neuroscience, 2005
Previous research has identified a component of the event-related brain potential (ERP), the feedback-related negativity, that is elicited by feedback stimuli associated with unfavourable outcomes. In the present research we used event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and electroencephalographic (EEG) recordings to test the common hypothesis that this component is generated in the caudal anterior cingulate cortex. The EEG results indicated that our paradigm, a time estimation task with trial-to-trial performance feedback, elicited a large feedback-related negativity (FRN). Nevertheless, the fMRI results did not reveal any area in the caudal anterior cingulate cortex that was differentially activated by positive and negative performance feedback, casting doubt on the notion that the FRN is generated in this brain region. In contrast, we found a number of brain areas outside the posterior medial frontal cortex that were activated more strongly by positive feedback than by negative feedback. These included areas in the rostral anterior cingulate cortex, posterior cingulate cortex, right superior frontal gyrus, and striatum. An anatomically constrained source model assuming equivalent dipole generators in the rostral anterior cingulate, posterior cingulate, and right superior frontal gyrus produced a simulated scalp distribution that corresponded closely to the observed scalp distribution of the FRN. These results support a new hypothesis regarding the neural generators of the FRN, and have important implications for the use of this component as an electrophysiological index of performance monitoring and reward processing.
How an uncertain cue modulates subsequent monetary outcome evaluation: An ERP study
Neuroscience Letters, 2011
People avert uncertain situations more than certain ones, and the neural correlates of such acts have gained increasing attention in past decade. However, the electrophysiological bases of how subjects respond to uncertain cues, and how such cues affect subsequent outcome evaluations have rarely been explored. In the present study, participants completed a gambling task while their neural activities were recorded through electroencephalography. The results indicated that subjects were sensitive to the uncertain cue as represented by feedback-related negativity (FRN). This uncertain cue further enhanced the neural response to outcome evaluation represented by P200, FRN, and P300 temporally. The enhanced P200 outcome may reflect the negative bias of the emotional reaction, which is a reflection of uncertain deviation at an early stage. The discrepancies of differentiated feedback-related negativity between uncertain and certain condition indicated increased motivation or prediction error toward the outcome. Finally, the increased P300 amplitude under uncertain outcome compared with certain one, as well as its sensitivity to the valence of the outcome under uncertain condition, embodies the increased arousal of the affective response. Therefore, uncertain cue effects observed in the current study suggest that uncertainty induces a larger motivational/affective and expectation response toward outcome revelation.
Neuroimage, 2010
Feedback error-related negativity (f ERN) has been referred to as a negative deflection in the event related potential (ERP), which distinguishes between wins and losses in terms of expected and unexpected outcomes. Some studies refer to the "expected outcome" as the probability to win vs. to lose, and others as expected size of rewards. We still do not know much about whether these alternative interpretations of "expected outcome" affect the fERN in a different manner, nor do we know the effect of their interaction in an expected value fashion. We set a gambling task with four game categories; two had the same expected value, while the other two categories were equivalent to the first ones, but alternatively in the size or probability of the offered rewards. Results show that fERN preceded by a P200, and followed by a Pe-like wave differentiates between losing in the category with a higher expected value and the rest of the experimental conditions. fERN differentiates between wins and losses, but changes in the size and probability of rewards impact the fERN amplitude only in win conditions. Results also show greater positivity following win feedback when the size and/or probability of the outcome rewards were higher, so that the higher the expected value the greater the positivity following win feedback. Our findings support the notion that both the probability and size of the offered rewards modulate the motivational value for the win feedback, this being also true for their interaction in an expected value fashion.
Cerebral Cortex, 2004
A recent study has reported the observation in humans of an eventrelated brain potential component that is sensitive to the value of outcomes in a gambling task. This component, labeled medial frontal negativity (MFN), was most pronounced following monetary losses as opposed to monetary gains. In this study, we investigate the relationship between the MFN and the error-related negativity (ERN), a component elicited by feedback indicating incorrect choice performance. We argue that the two components can be understood in terms of a recently proposed theory that predicts the occurrence of such scalp negativities following stimuli that indicate that ongoing events are worse than expected. The results from two experiments using a gambling task demonstrate that the sensitivity of the MFN/ERN to the utilitarian and performance aspect of the feedback depends on which aspect is most salient. The results are consistent with the view that the two components are manifestations of the same underlying cognitive and neural process.
The good, the bad and the neutral: Electrophysiological responses to feedback stimuli
Brain Research, 2006
The feedback error-related negativity (fERN) is a component of the event-related brain potential elicited in gambling and trial-and-error learning tasks by negative, but not positive, feedback stimuli. Here, we present the results of a series of five experiments that investigated the response of the fERN to the presentation of neutral feedback stimuli. In three of the experiments, the neutral feedback stimuli indicated that the participants did not receive a potential reward nor incur a potential penalty (i.e., they received nothing); and in the remaining two experiments, the neutral feedback stimuli did not convey any meaningful information (i.e., the participants were either successful or unsuccessful on those trials, but the feedback stimuli were uninformative about the outcomes). Across the five experiments, we found that neutral feedback stimuli elicited a fERN about as large as that elicited by negative feedback stimuli. This result is consistent with recent proposals that the evaluative system that produces the fERN classifies outcomes into two categories: those outcomes that indicate that a goal has been satisfied and those that do not.