FRN-like Components during Internally Guided Decision-making Using the Blind Choice Paradigm

Abstract

The value of an item is learned through the decision-making sequence. The learning process has been investigated separately in the contexts of internally guided decision-making (IDM, e.g., preference judgment) and externally guided decision-making (EDM, e.g., gambling task). Regarding EDM, learning processes of item values have been explained by reinforcement learning theory. The amplitude of feedback-related negativity (FRN) is known to reflect prediction error, which modulates the degree of value updating. Recently, as with the EDM, the reinforcement learning-like mechanism is thought to explain value updating in IDM (choice-induced preference change: CIPC). This study used the blind choice paradigm to investigate whether the FRN is associated with CIPC, or not. In this paradigm, participants blindly choose the more preferred one form the two equally preferred items, and then feedback indicating the chosen item. Results showed that the FRN-like component was observed but not related to CIPC. These results suggest that the FRN-like component does not reflect the degree of value updating but reflects a participant s estimation about how much their preference is reflected in the feedback.

Relation between choice-induced preference change and depression

“…The procedures of these three tasks resembled those described by Nakamura and Kawabata [53] and by Sharot et al [54], and also our earlier EEG experiment [55]. To familiarize participants with the pre-choice rating task and blind choice task, they were given three practice trials.…”

“…In this experiment, 51 Japanese undergraduate and graduate students participated. Furthermore, when we examined the relation between depression and choice-induced preference change, we added data about the change in ratings and CES-D scores (i.e., depressive symptoms) of 33 Japanese undergraduate and graduate students from our earlier EEG experiment using the same paradigm as that of the present study [ 55 ]. The total data were those of 84 participants (see Fig 1 ).…”

“…Consequently, the valid data were those of n = 69 participants (40 female, mean age = 19.7, age range = 18–26). The result of choice-induced preference change from our EEG experiment was presented in our previous paper [ 55 ]. Therefore, when we examined choice-induced preference change itself, we excluded data from the EEG experiment.…”