Preparing for saliencies: Emotional expectations under probabilistically and aversively salient situations

Abstract

In humans, the expectation process in decision making has not been as thoroughly investigated as the evaluation process. The present study focused on the interaction between probabilistic saliency and motivational saliency during expectation and evaluation periods using stimulus-preceding negativity (SPN) and reward positivity (RewP). Twenty healthy participants performed a modified monetary-incentive delay task under reward-approach and punishment-avoidance conditions. Each condition was characterized by the likely outcome (reward only, punishment only) to manipulate motivational saliency. The task difficulty was regulated to control for probabilistic saliency, and the error trial was set as a probabilistically salient event (75% correct, 25% error). The results demonstrated that there was a larger SPN in the 25%-error trial than the 75%-correct trial and that it was left hemisphere predominant. Furthermore, there was an interaction between probabilistic and motivational saliency such that the SPN in the error trial was larger in the punishment-avoidance than in the reward-approach condition at Fz and at the right hemisphere. In contrast, RewP was only significantly different from zero in the 75%-correct trial in the reward-approach condition. These results confirm that the SPN increases with probabilistic saliency and that probabilistically salient events may intervene in the motivational saliency of the outcome; furthermore, that RewP reflects the weighted positive value of the outcome for reward but not the weighted negative value of the outcome for punishment. We discuss the interaction between probabilistic saliency and motivational saliency on SPN and its left hemisphere predominance based on the functions of the insular cortex.

Neural Correlates of Anhedonia in Major Depressive Disorder: Insights from Concurrent Analysis of Feedback-Related Negativity and Stimulus-Preceding Negativity

“…As this component is typically maximum in the frontal-central region, we focused on the average amplitude of six electrodes (F1, Fz, F2, FC1, FCz, FC2) was selected for analysis, as has been done in many previous studies. 33 Similarly, in line with the typical topographical features of SPN, our attention was directed towards the mean amplitude of the right frontal-central sites (F2, FC2) within the time frame of 200ms prior to the feedback presentation (equivalent to 2800~3000ms following the last keyboard response).…”

Distinct electrophysiological correlates between expected reward and risk processing

“…Another two studies found comparable cue-P3s between cues signaling a high probability (98% or 100%) of an upcoming reward and cues signaling an reward probability of 50% (Deng, Yu, Chen, & Wang, 2012;Schutte, Heitland, & Kenemans, 2019). Compared to the cue-RewP and the cue-P3, recent ERP studies have more focused on the relationship between the SPN and reward probability (Catena et al, 2012;Foti & Hajcak, 2012;Fuentemilla et al, 2013;Kamei, Kotani, & Sakuma, 2018;Megias et al, 2018;Umemoto & Holroyd, 2017;Walentowska, Paul, Severo, Moors, & Pourtois, 2018). The SPN has found to be enhanced prior to rewards with 50% probability relative to those with 75% (Catena et al, 2012;Megias et al, 2018) or 100% (Foti & Hajcak, 2012) probability.…”