Feedback negativity and feedback‐related P3 in individuals at risk for depression: Comparing surface potentials and current source densities

Abstract

Blunted responses to reward feedback have been linked to major depressive disorder (MDD) and depression risk. Using a monetary incentive delay task (win, loss, break‐even), we investigated the impact of family risk for depression and lifetime history of MDD and anxiety disorder with 72‐channel electroencephalograms (EEG) recorded from 29 high‐risk and 32 low‐risk individuals (15–58 years, 30 male). Linked‐mastoid surface potentials (ERPs) and their corresponding reference‐free current source densities (CSDs) were quantified by temporal principal components analysis (PCA). Each PCA solution revealed a midfrontal feedback negativity (FN; peak around 310 ms) and a posterior feedback‐P3 (fb‐P3; 380 ms) as two distinct reward processing stages. Unbiased permutation tests and multilevel modeling of component scores revealed greater FN to loss than win and neutral for all stratification groups, confirming FN sensitivity to valence. Likewise, all groups had greater fb‐P3 to win and loss than neutral, confirming that fb‐P3 indexes motivational salience and allocation of attention. By contrast, group effects were subtle, dependent on data transformation (ERP, CSD), and did not confirm reduced FN or fb‐P3 for at‐risk individuals. Instead, CSD‐based fb‐P3 was overall reduced in individuals with than without MDD history, whereas ERP‐based fb‐P3 was greater for high‐risk individuals than for low‐risk individuals for monetary, but not neutral outcomes. While the present findings do not support blunted reward processing in depression and depression risk, our side‐by‐side comparison underscores how the EEG reference choice affects the characterization of subtle group differences, strongly advocating the use of reference‐free techniques.

Subjective cognitive decline in healthy older adults is associated with altered processing of negative versus positive feedback in a probabilistic learning task

“…Hence, the most likely explanation for the differential FRN pattern appears to be a processing bias of the SCD group toward negative performance feedback. Given the fact that groups with a tendency to preferentially process negative information like patients with depression and anxiety have been reported to show enhanced FRN amplitudes to negative feedback ( Santesso et al, 2012 ; Keren et al, 2018 ; Tobias and Ito, 2021 ; but see Gao et al, 2024 for a different result), this is in line with the fact that the SCD group showed stronger symptoms of depression and anxiety than the No-SCD group ( Table 1 ). Some indirect evidence for a role of depressive symptoms in the present result pattern comes from the fact that the group × valence interaction missed the significance level when statistically controlling for depressive symptoms.…”

“…However, prior results are not entirely consistent. For example, Gao et al (2024) found no association between affective symptoms and FRN amplitude. Nevertheless, it appears that a processing bias toward negative information may go hand in hand with an enhanced FRN to negative feedback.…”