ERP evidence of cognitive strategy change in motivational conditions with varying level of difficulty

Abstract

Recent research suggests that motivation improves cognitive functions but the particular mechanisms and precise behavioural conditions involved in such improvement still remain unknown. Particularly, it is unclear when in time and in which conditions these mechanisms are engaged. In the present study, we aimed to look at the neural markers of cognitive control strategies in different motivational conditions (motivation vs neutral) with different levels of difficulty (high vs low). Twenty-five adults completed a newly designed task in the four conditions above. Three ERP components were analysed: the CNV, LRP and P3b. We found that a motivational situation triggers the use of a proactive strategy when low cognitive control is required. A reactive strategy was used in a non-motivational situation and for difficult trials. Our study is also the first to provide evidence that the difference between proactive and reactive strategies occurs after the first stimulus (cue) is processed.

Anhedonia is associated with reduced incentive cue related activation in the basal ganglia

“…However, we did not find main effect of Reward or Reward × Trial Type interaction in the accuracy data, meaning that we did find that incentives modulated accuracy. However, consistent with previous studies showing enhancement of rewards on cognitive function (Chiew & Braver, 2013; Gilbert & Fiez, 2004; Hughes, Mathan, & Yeung, 2013; Locke & Braver, 2008; Strang & Pollak, 2014; Vuillier, Whitebread, & Szucs, 2015), we did find a main effect of Reward in the RT data, with faster responses on reward cue trials compared to no-reward cue trials in reward block (incentive cue effect) as well as faster responses on no-reward cue trials in the reward block as compared to the baseline block (incentive context effect). These enhancing effects of reward on RT suggest that knowledge of potential rewards enhanced participants’ behavioral performance, potentially through facilitated representation of reward value within reward contexts.…”

Preparing for (valenced) action: The role of differential effort in the orthogonalized go/no‐go task

“…However, although we expected to find a motivational effect on the preparatory CNV component (mainly in go trials), we did not find a significant amplitude difference between anticipated gain, loss, and neutral trials. Results of previous studies investigating the role of reward and/or punishment during target preparation are also inconsistent, with some studies reporting a lack of motiva-tional influences on the CNV amplitude (Broyd et al, 2012;Goldstein et al, 2006;Sobotka et al, 1992) but others finding larger CNV amplitudes for cues indicating reward and/or punishment availability (Hughes et al, 2012;Pfabigan et al, 2014;Schevernels et al, 2014;Vuillier et al, 2015). In contrast to the current paradigm, these previous studies, however, usually investigated reward effects on the CNV amplitude in classic monetary incentive delay tasks that always involve the execution of an action.…”

“…In a number of studies, the CNV was investigated using a cued go/no‐go paradigm, and they found that the CNV is larger when anticipating go trials compared to no‐go trials, suggesting enhanced preparatory cortical activity (e.g., Filipović, Jahanshahi, & Rothwell, ; Funderud et al, ; Rosahl & Knight, ). Moreover, the CNV has been shown to be sensitive to the anticipation of different levels of task demands or cognitive effort (Ansari & Derakshan, ; McEvoy, Smith, & Gevins, ; Schevernels, Krebs, Santens, Woldorff, & Boehler, ; but see Vuillier, Whitebread, & Szucs, ), which may again largely reflect differences in preparatory state or the amount of resources allocated to a cognitive process (see also Rösler, Heil, & Röder, ). Therefore, if different levels of task preparation are involved, we would expect larger CNV amplitudes in anticipated go trials than in no‐go trials (as suggested by previous studies).…”

Reward interacts with modality shift to reduce cross-modal conflict

“…Journal of Vision, 17(1):19, 1-14, doi:10.1167/17.1.19. Pessoa, 2015;Soutschek, Stelzel, Paschke, Walter, & Schubert, 2015;Vuillier, Whitebread, & Szucs, 2015;Wang, Yu, & Zhou, 2013). For example, Padmala and Pessoa (2011) presented a picture of a house or building together with a letter string on the picture and asked participants to indicate whether the picture was a house or a building.…”