Learning‐induced modulations of the stimulus‐preceding negativity

Morís, Joaquín; Luque, David; Rodrı́guez-Fornells, Antoni

doi:10.1111/psyp.12073

Cited by 63 publications

(99 citation statements)

References 49 publications

(83 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This correlation was still present when both groups were analyzed separately: High ET (r = -0.5, p = .035); Low ET (r = -0.57, p = .014). This association observed is in agreement with the idea that the larger the expectancy towards external feedback, the larger the motivational impact of its presentation (Fuentemilla et al, 2013;Moris et al, 2013). …”

Section: Anticipation and Processing Of Positive Feedbacksupporting

confidence: 81%

“…The SPN amplitude was modulated by the relevance of the feedback, main effect of error feedback type, F(2, 68) = 24.6, p < .001, ηp 2 = 0.42, being greater during Final reversal errors (FRE) when compared to Spurious negative and Reversal trials. In agreement with previous studies (Masaki et al, 2006;Moris et al, 2013), the SPN increase during motivationally engaging and relevant feedback (in this case, Final reversal errors) was greater during the time window of 200 to 0 ms preceding feedback onset as revealed by the interaction error feedback type x time, F(2, 68) = 11.2, p < .001, ηp 2 = 0.25. A triple interaction error feedback type x time x Group, F(2, 68) = 4.6, p < .05, ηp 2 = 0.12, further showed that during the 200 ms preceding feedback presentation the enhancement of the SPN amplitude during Final reversal errors was stronger on the High ET group.…”

Section: Anticipation Of Negative Error Feedback: Spnsupporting

confidence: 77%

“…2). The diminished SPN amplitude in the High ET group suggests less attention orientation and motivational engagement towards the information conveyed by external events that did not imply rulebased changes in behavior (Brunia et al, 2011;Kotani et al, 2003;Moris et al, 2013). Furthermore, the reduced activity of the FRN and P3 components in the High ET group shows that this group may perceive error feedback as motivationally less salient or informative for the effectiveness of ongoing performance, directing less attention to external feedback (Fischer & Ullsperger, 2013;Gehring & Willoughby, 2002;Nieuwenhuis et al, 2004;Picton, 1992;Polich, 2007;Yeung et al, 2005).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…Changes in the SPN amplitude were studied in the 200-ms period prior to feedback presentation, which, according to previous studies, reflects the temporal window of maximal SPN activity (Masaki et al, 2006;Moris et al, 2013).…”

Section: Erp Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The SPN is an ERP component that is built up during the period preceding feedback presentation and has been described as an electrophysiological marker of subjects' anticipatory attention and motivational engagement to informative or relevant feedback (Brunia, Hackley, van Boxtel, Kotani, & Ohgami, 2011;Fuentemilla et al, 2013;Kotani et al, 2003;Masaki, Takeuchi, Gehring, Takasawa, & Yamasaki, 2006;Moris, Luque, & Rodriguez-Fornells, 2013).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Individual differences in error tolerance in humans: Neurophysiological evidences

Padrão

Mallorquí²,

Cucurell

et al. 2015

Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When interacting in error-prone environments, humans display different tolerances to changing their decisions when faced with erroneous feedback information. Here, we investigated whether these individual differences in error tolerance (ET) were reflected in neurophysiological mechanisms indexing specific motivational states related to feedback monitoring. To explore differences in ET, we examined the performance of 80 participants in a probabilistic reversal-learning task. We then compared eventrelated brain responses (ERPs) of two extreme groups of participants (High ET and Low ET), which showed radical differences in their propensity to maintain newly learned rules after receiving spurious negative feedback. We observed that High ET participants showed reduced anticipatory activity prior to the presentation of incoming feedback, informing them of the correctness of their performance. This was evidenced by measuring the amplitude of the stimulus-preceding negativity (SPN), an ERP component indexing attention and motivational engagement of incoming informative feedback. Postfeedback processing ERP components (the so-called Feedback-Related Negativity and the P300) also showed reduced amplitude in this group (High ET). The general decreased responsiveness of the High ET group to external feedback suggests a higher proneness to favor internal(rule)-based strategies, reducing attention to external cues and the consequent impact of negative evaluations on decision making. We believe that the present findings support the existence of specific cognitive and motivational processes underlying individual differences on error-tolerance among humans, contributing to the ongoing research focused on understanding the mental processes behind human fallibility in error-prone scenarios.Keywords Error tolerance . Decision-making . Action-monitoring . ERPs . Individual differences Humans have different tolerance to negative feedback about their performance and changing their ongoing behaviors based on external environmental cues. As these individual differences are likely to influence the way their decisions are acted upon, an important challenge for cognitive psychologists and neuroscientists is not only to understand the nature of the brain mechanisms and inherent cognitive and motivational processes underlying these differences but also to explain how these differences are related to (in)adequate decisional processes carried out by human agents in their interaction with real-world and error-prone environments.The study of human error processing has advanced enormously during the last 2 decades, mostly due to the discovery of specific event-related brain components (ERPs) and neural networks that respond selectively to error monitoring, error correction, and compensation processes (Carter et al., 1998;

show abstract

Section: Anticipation and Processing Of Positive Feedbacksupporting

confidence: 81%

Section: Anticipation Of Negative Error Feedback: Spnsupporting

confidence: 77%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Section: Erp Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Individual differences in error tolerance in humans: Neurophysiological evidences

Padrão

Mallorquí²,

Cucurell

et al. 2015

Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Electrophysiological Signatures of Reward Processing in Anhedonia

Mallorquí¹,

Padrão

Rodrı́guez-Fornells

2014

Anhedonia: A Comprehensive Handbook Volume I

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hey, what is your choice? Uncertainty and inconsistency enhance subjective anticipation of upcoming information in a social context

Wang

Sun

et al. 2018

Exp Brain Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research examined whether uncertainty would modulate subjective anticipation during social interactions as it does in the non-social context, and further explored how response consistency between participants would influence one's anticipation. We set up an encyclopedic knowledge quiz involving two anonymous same-sex players and manipulated the difficulty of proposed questions (high-uncertainty accompanies highly difficult questions). An enlarged stimulus-preceding negativity was observed when participants were anticipating the presentation of their counterparts' responses to high-uncertainty questions (versus low-uncertainty ones), as well as when they were anticipating the display of correct answers to high-uncertainty questions after they found out that responses given by their partners were inconsistent (versus consistent) with their own. In addition, inconsistent responses gave rise to a more salient difference wave reward positivity and a more positive P300 during the feedback stage. Taken together, these results suggested that both uncertainty and inconsistency would enhance subjective anticipation of upcoming information during social interactions, and that inconsistency would strengthen one's concern and attention over outcomes.

show abstract

Learning‐induced modulations of the stimulus‐preceding negativity

Cited by 63 publications

References 49 publications

Individual differences in error tolerance in humans: Neurophysiological evidences

Individual differences in error tolerance in humans: Neurophysiological evidences

Electrophysiological Signatures of Reward Processing in Anhedonia

Hey, what is your choice? Uncertainty and inconsistency enhance subjective anticipation of upcoming information in a social context

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About