It's worse than you thought: The feedback negativity and violations of reward prediction in gambling tasks

Hajcak, Greg; Moser, Jason S.; Holroyd, Clay B.; Simons, Robert F.

doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.2007.00567.x

Cited by 476 publications

(551 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

472

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Because in the original Gehring and Willoughby study events were included in which a small loss was the most advantageous outcome of a trial (because the other response option would have resulted in a greater loss), it appears that the FRN responds to the gain/loss status of an event as opposed to whether or not the choice was erroneous or disadvantageous. In other studies, a strong influence of context on the FRN elicited by losses and negative events has been reported [16]. …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 81%

When decisions of others matter to me: an electrophysiological analysis

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundActions of others may have immediate consequences for oneself. We probed the neural responses associated with the observation of another person's action using event-related potentials in a modified gambling task. In this task a "performer" bet either a higher or lower number and could win or lose this amount. Three different groups of "observers" were also studied. The first (neutral) group simply observed the performer's action, which had no consequences for the observers. In the second (parallel) group, wins/losses of the performer were paralleled by similar wins and losses by the observer. In the third (reverse) group, wins of the performer led to a loss of the observer and vice versa.ResultsERPs of the performers showed a mediofrontal feedback related negativity (FRN) to losses. The neutral and parallel observer groups did similarly show an FRN response to the performer's losses with a topography indistinguishable from that seen in the performers. In the reverse group, however, the FRN occurred for wins of the performer which translated to losses for the observer.ConclusionsTaking into account previous experiments, we suggest that the FRN response in observers is driven by two evaluative processes (a) related to the benefit/loss for oneself and (b) related to the benefit/loss of another person.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 81%

When decisions of others matter to me: an electrophysiological analysis

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While the negative deflection to unfavourable outcomes described above has been reported in a wide variety of circumstances, including simulated gambling (Hewig et al, 2007), guessing tasks Hajcak et al, 2005Hajcak et al, , 2007, time estimation tasks (Holroyd and Krigolsen, 2007;Miltner et al, 1997;Nieuwenhuis et al, 2005), and learning tasks (De Pascalis et al, 2010), the true nature of the FRN remains somewhat unclear, as this component is commonly superimposed on large amplitude P300 responses that occur immediately after it. It has been proposed that the reduced amplitude FRN observed following win outcomes may not be an actual attenuated response to these events, but is rather driven by larger P300 amplitudes following favourable outcomes (Yeung and Sanfey, 2004).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…It has been proposed that the reduced amplitude FRN observed following win outcomes may not be an actual attenuated response to these events, but is rather driven by larger P300 amplitudes following favourable outcomes (Yeung and Sanfey, 2004). Furthermore, the relative contribution of negative and positive outcomes to the FRN remains unclear due to the fact that many studies have employed the computation of a difference waveform to measure FRN magnitude (e.g., Dunning and Hajcak, 2007;Foti and Hajcak, 2009;Hajcak et al, 2007;Holroyd et al, 2008;Miltner et al, 1997), and other recent research has suggested that, rather than a negative deflection to non-reward outcomes, the FRN is better conceptualised as a positive deflection that is greater following reward compared to non-reward outcomes (Foti et al, 2011;Holroyd et al, 2003;Holroyd et al, 2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Typically examined as a global component, the P300 (called the LPC in many studies), has also been shown to be sensitive to various aspects of incentive value on tasks that simulate gambling (Bellbaum et al, 2010;Hajcak et al, 2007). The inverse relationship between probability and P300 amplitude has been well established (Donchin and Coles, 1988), although the understanding of these results is subject to different interpretations (see Gonsalvez et al, 2007;Verleger, 1988).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The inverse relationship between probability and P300 amplitude has been well established (Donchin and Coles, 1988), although the understanding of these results is subject to different interpretations (see Gonsalvez et al, 2007;Verleger, 1988). Nevertheless, studies that have controlled for event probability have demonstrated that the P300 remains sensitive to manipulations of win and loss outcomes (e.g., Hajcak et al, 2007;Wu and Zhou, 2009;Yeung et al, 2005;Zhou et al, 2010), although the pattern of these results is somewhat variable. Some studies report a double dissociation between the FRN and P300, showing the FRN to be affected by valence but not reward magnitude, with the opposite pattern for the P300, regardless of whether the outcome is of positive or negative valence (Sato et al, 2005;Yeung and Sanfey, 2004).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Can event-related potentials serve as neural markers for wins, losses, and near-wins in a gambling task? A principal components analysis

Lole

Gonsalvez

Barry

et al. 2013

International Journal of Psychophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Originally, the feedback related negativity (FRN) event-related potential (ERP) component was considered to be a robust neural correlate of non-reward/punishment processing, with greater negative deflections observed following unfavourable outcomes. More recently, it has been suggested that this component is better conceptualised as a positive deflection following rewarding outcomes. The current study sought to elucidate the nature of the FRN, as well as another component associated with incentive-value processing, the P3b, through application of a spatiotemporal principal components analysis (PCA). Seventeen healthy controls played a computer electronic gaming machine (EGM) task and received feedback on credits won or lost on each trial, and ERPs were recorded. The distribution of reward/non-reward outcomes closely matched that of a real EGM, with frequent losses, and infrequent wins and near-wins. The PCA revealed that feedback elicited both a frontally maximal negative deflection to losses, and a positive deflection to wins (which was also sensitive to reward magnitude), implying that the neural generator/s of the FRN are differentially activated following these outcomes. As expected, greater P3b amplitudes were found for wins compared to losses. Interestingly, near-wins elicited significantly smaller FRN amplitudes than losses (with no differences in P3b amplitude), and may contribute to the maintenance of gambling behaviours on EGMs. The results of the current study are integrated into a response profile of healthy controls to outcomes of varying incentive value. This may provide a foundation for the future examination of individuals who exhibit abnormalities in reward/ punishment processing, such as problem gamblers. The PCA revealed that feedback elicited both a frontally maximal negative deflection to losses, and a positive deflection to wins (which was also sensitive to reward magnitude), implying that the neural generator/s of the FRN are differentially activated following these outcomes. As expected, greater P3b amplitudes were found for wins compared to losses.Interestingly, near-wins elicited significantly smaller FRN amplitudes than losses (with no differences in P3b amplitude), and may contribute to the maintenance of gambling behaviours on EGMs. The results of the current study are integrated into a response profile of healthy controls to outcomes of varying incentive value. This may provide a foundation for the future examination of individuals who exhibit abnormalities in reward/punishment processing, such as problem gamblers.

show abstract

Single dose of a dopamine agonist impairs reinforcement learning in humans: Evidence from event‐related potentials and computational modeling of striatal‐cortical function

Santesso

Evins

Frank

et al. 2008

Human Brain Mapping

125

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Animal findings have highlighted the modulatory role of phasic dopamine (DA) signaling in incentive learning, particularly in the acquisition of reward-related behavior. In humans, these processes remain largely unknown. In a recent study we demonstrated that a single low dose of a D2/D3 agonist (pramipexole) -assumed to activate DA autoreceptors and thus reduce phasic DA bursts -impaired reward learning in healthy subjects performing a probabilistic reward task. The purpose of the present study was to extend these behavioral findings using event-related potentials and computational modeling. Compared to the placebo group, participants receiving pramipexole showed increased feedback-related negativity to probabilistic rewards and decreased activation in dorsal anterior cingulate regions previously implicated in integrating reinforcement history over time. Additionally, findings of blunted reward learning in participants receiving pramipexole were simulated by reduced presynaptic DA signaling in response to reward in a neural network model of striatal-cortical function. These preliminary findings offer important insights on the role of phasic DA signals on reinforcement learning in humans, and provide initial evidence regarding the spatio-temporal dynamics of brain mechanisms underlying these processes.In recent years, the role of dopamine (DA) in reinforcement learning has been strongly emphasized. In particular, electrophysiological studies in non-human primates have shown that midbrain DA neurons code reward-related prediction errors: unpredicted rewards elicit phasic increases in DA neurons as well as phasic DA release (positive-prediction error), whereas omission of a predicted reward elicits phasic DA decreases (negative-prediction error) [Fiorillo et al., 2003;Schultz, 2007]. These phasic DA responses have been assumed to reflect a teaching signal for regions implicated in reward-related learning, including the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) and basal ganglia [Holroyd and Coles, 2002]. Accordingly, when a positive prediction error occurs, learning about the consequences of the behavior that led to reward takes place; when a negative prediction error occurs, behaviors that led to lack Please address all correspondence to: Diego A. Pizzagalli, Ph.D., Department of Psychology, Harvard University, 1220 William James Hall, 33 Kirkland Street, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA, Phone: +1-617-496-8896, Fax: +1-617-495-3728, dap@wjh.harvard.edu. Disclosure/Conflict of Interest Dr. Pizzagalli has received research support from GlaxoSmithKline and Merck & Co., Inc. for projects unrelated to the present study. Dr. Evins has received research grant support from Janssen Pharmaceutica, Sanofi-Aventis, Astra Zeneca; research materials from GSK and Pfizer, and honoraria from Primedia, Inc. Moreover, Dr. Evins is an investigator in a NIDA-funded collaborative study with GSK. Dr. Santesso, Dr. Frank, Ms. Cowman Schetter, and Mr. Bogdan report no competing interests. ([Bayer and Glimacher, 2005;Garris et al., 1999;Montague ...

show abstract

It's worse than you thought: The feedback negativity and violations of reward prediction in gambling tasks

Cited by 476 publications

References 32 publications

When decisions of others matter to me: an electrophysiological analysis

When decisions of others matter to me: an electrophysiological analysis

Can event-related potentials serve as neural markers for wins, losses, and near-wins in a gambling task? A principal components analysis

Single dose of a dopamine agonist impairs reinforcement learning in humans: Evidence from event‐related potentials and computational modeling of striatal‐cortical function

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About