Brain correlates of risky decision-making

Polezzi, David; Sartori, Giuseppe; Rumiati, Rino; Vidotto, Giulio; Daum, Irene

doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.08.068

Cited by 143 publications

(113 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

100

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Previous research already suggested a role for the ERN, and more generally the dACC, in error likelihood prediction (Brown and Braver, 2005;Potts et al, 2010) and risk prediction (Brown and Braver, 2007) as well as risk taking (Hewig et al, 2007;Hewig et al, 2009;Polezzi et al, 2009;Yu and Zhou, 2009), but see Nieuwenhuis et al (2007), Aarts et al (2008), and Yeung and Nieuwenhuis (2009), for opposite evidence regarding this errorlikelihood hypothesis. In these studies, risk is generally defined as an increased likelihood to obtain a negative compared to positive outcome.…”

Section: Using This New Task We Show That Commission and Accuracy Ermentioning

confidence: 96%

Delayed monitoring of accuracy errors compared to commission errors in ACC

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Error detection is essential for monitoring performance and preparing subsequent behavioral adjustments, and is associated with specific neural responses in the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC). To investigate whether different brain mechanisms subserve the processing of commission vs. accuracy errors, we recorded EEG in adult participants while they performed a novel speeded GO-NOGO aiming task ("the Shoot-NoShoot paradigm"). Our ERP results show that commission errors (responding during NOGO trials) elicited a classical error-related negativity (ERN) component, followed by an error-related positivity (Pe), as well as a negativity peaking before response onset (pre-ERN). By contrast, spatial accuracy errors elicited a feedback-related negativity (FRN), which correlated with the spatial discrepancy between response and target position across subjects. Fast hits also elicited a pre-ERN but no ERN, suggesting that this pre-response monitoring component might be related to the detection of error likelihood. Although source analysis revealed similar generators in ACC for these different error-related negativities, the respective timing differed, suggesting that commission errors are detected rapidly based on internal motor representations, whereas the detection of accuracy errors in ACC relies on the additional and swift processing of external visual information.

show abstract

Section: Using This New Task We Show That Commission and Accuracy Ermentioning

confidence: 96%

Delayed monitoring of accuracy errors compared to commission errors in ACC

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, accumulating evidences from recent studies are in favor of Holroyd and Coles's (2002) original idea (e.g., Goyer et al., 2008; Gu et al., 2011; Meadows, Gable, Lohse, & Miller, 2016; Sambrook & Goslin, 2015). The P3 is a centro‐parietal positivity that appears after the FRN when elicited by outcome feedback (Polezzi, Sartori, Rumiati, Vidotto, & Daum, 2010; Wu & Zhou, 2009; Zhang et al., 2013). When investigating feedback processing, the P3 is often associated with the emotional significance of outcome feedback (Gu et al., 2011; Luo et al., 2014; Wu & Zhou, 2009).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Valence and magnitude ambiguity in feedback processing

Xue

Broster

et al. 2017

Brain and Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundOutcome feedback which indicates behavioral consequences are crucial for reinforcement learning and environmental adaptation. Nevertheless, outcome information in daily life is often totally or partially ambiguous. Studying how people interpret this kind of information would provide important knowledge about the human evaluative system.MethodsThis study concentrates on the neural processing of partially ambiguous feedback, that is, either its valence or magnitude is unknown to participants. To address this topic, we sequentially presented valence and magnitude information; electroencephalography (EEG) response to each kind of presentation was recorded and analyzed. The event‐related potential components feedback‐related negativity (FRN) and P3 were used as indices of neural activity.ResultsConsistent with previous literature, the FRN elicited by ambiguous valence was not significantly different from that elicited by negative valence. On the other hand, the FRN elicited by ambiguous magnitude was larger than both the large and small magnitude, indicating the motivation to seek unambiguous magnitude information. The P3 elicited by ambiguous valence and ambiguous magnitude was not significantly different from that elicited by negative valence and small magnitude, respectively, indicating the emotional significance of feedback ambiguity. Finally, the aforementioned effects also manifested in the stage of information integration.ConclusionThese findings indicate both similarities and discrepancies between the processing of valence ambiguity and that of magnitude ambiguity, which may help understand the mechanisms of ambiguous information processing.

show abstract

“…The ERP component P3 was chosen for analysis, for its significance to ERP research on decision making (Christie & Tata, 2009;P. Li et al, 2010;Polezzi, Sartori, Rumiati, Vidotto, & Daum, 2010;Wu & Zhou, 2009). The P3 component is a centro-parietal positivity approximately 300-600 ms post-stimulus.…”

Section: Influence Of Anxiety On Inhibition Function: Decision Makingmentioning

confidence: 99%