Reward positivity is elicited by monetary reward in the absence of response choice

Abstract

The neural response to positive and negative feedback differs in their event-related potentials. Most often this difference is interpreted as the result of a negative voltage deflection after negative feedback. This deflection has been referred to as the feedback-related negativity component. The reinforcement learning model of the feedback-related negativity establishes that this component reflects an error monitoring process aimed to increase behavior adjustment progressively. However, a recent proposal suggests that the difference observed is actually due to a positivity reflecting the rewarding value of positive feedbacks - that is, the reward positivity component (RewP). From this it follows that RewP could be found even in the absence of any action-monitoring processes. We tested this prediction by means of an experiment in which visual target stimuli were intermixed with nontarget stimuli. Three types of targets signaled money gains, money losses, or the absence of either money gain or money loss, respectively. No motor response was required. Event-related potential analyses showed a central positivity in a 270-370 ms time window that was elicited by target stimuli signaling money gains, as compared with both stimuli signaling losses and no-gain/no-loss neutral stimuli. This is the first evidence to show that RewP is obtained when stimuli with rewarding values are passively perceived.

Stimulus–response learning and expected reward value enhance stimulus cognitive processing: An ERP study

“…We also hypothesized that the centroparietal effect might correspond to the P3b component (Friedman et al., 1993; Luck & Kappenman, 2012; Polich, 2007). Other ERP components that have been related to associative learning, such as the P2 (Luque et al., 2015; Wills et al., 2007) or the S‐locked FRN (Holroyd et al., 2011; Varona‐Moya et al., 2015), did not yield any significant effects. In summary, Luque et al.…”

“…We also hypothesized that the centroparietal effect might correspond to the P3b component (Friedman et al, 1993;Luck & Kappenman, 2012;Polich, 2007). Other ERP components that have been related to associative learning, such as the P2 (Luque et al, 2015;Wills et al, 2007) or the S-locked FRN (Holroyd et al, 2011;Varona-Moya et al, 2015), did not yield any significant effects. In summary, Luque et al (2017) showed that the high-value S was prioritized relatively soon after its presentation on the screen (i.e., the P1 effect), and this prioritization was insensitive to the instructed devaluation of the O (i.e., it was "habit-like").…”

Losses disguised as wins evoke the reward-positivity event-related potential in a simulated machine gambling task.

“…As outlined in the introduction, the finding that the RewP is sensitive to a binary assessment of outcome valence is very robust, and has been replicated numerous times in a wide array of reward-processing tasks, as well with meta-analysis and in larger samples (Proudfit, 2015;Sambrook & Goslin, 2015;Williams et al, 2021). A number of studies have reported that the RewP appears to be sensitive only to positively valanced outcomes, and displays little to no distinction between neutral and negative outcomes (Hajcak et al, 2006;Holroyd et al, 2006;Kujawa et al, 2013;Varona-Moya et al, 2015). If so, these findings suggest that LDWs are experienced as a positive outcome, on average, despite being a net loss.…”

Losses disguised as wins evoke the reward positivity event‐related potential in a simulated machine gambling task

“…As outlined in the introduction, the finding that the RewP is sensitive to a binary assessment of outcome valence is very robust and has been replicated numerous times in a wide array of reward‐processing tasks, as well as with meta‐analysis and in larger samples (Proudfit, 2015; Sambrook & Goslin, 2015; Williams et al., 2021). A number of studies have reported that the RewP appears to be sensitive only to positively valanced outcomes and displays little to no distinction between neutral and negative outcomes (Hajcak et al., 2006; Holroyd et al., 2006; Kujawa et al., 2013; Varona‐Moya et al., 2015). If this is the case, these findings suggest that LDWs are experienced as a positive outcome, on average, despite being a net loss.…”