Teasing apart the anticipatory and consummatory processing of monetary incentives: An event‐related potential study of reward dynamics

Abstract

The monetary incentive delay (MID) task has been widely used in fMRI studies to investigate the neural networks involved in anticipatory and consummatory reward processing. Previous efforts to adapt the MID task for use with ERPs, however, have had limited success. Here, we sought to further decompose reward dynamics using a comprehensive set of anticipatory (cue-N2, cue-P3, contingent negative variation [CNV]) and consummatory ERPs (feedback negativity [FN], feedback P3 [fb-P3]). ERP data was recorded during adapted versions of the MID task across two experiments. Unlike previous studies, monetary incentive cues modulated the cue-N2, cue-P3, and CNV; however, cue-related ERPs and the CNV were uncorrelated with one another, indicating distinct anticipatory subprocesses. With regard to consummatory processing, FN amplitude primarily tracked outcome valence (reward vs. nonreward), whereas fb-P3 amplitude primarily tracked outcome salience (uncertain vs. certain). Independent modulation of the cue-P3 and fb-P3 was observed, indicating that these two P3 responses may uniquely capture the allocation of attention during anticipatory and consummatory reward processing, respectively. Overall, across two samples, consistent evidence of both anticipatory and consummatory ERP activity was observed on an adapted version of the MID paradigm, demonstrating for the first time how these ERP components may be integrated with one another to more fully characterize the time course of reward processing. This ERP-MID paradigm is well suited to parsing reward dynamics, and can be applied to both healthy and clinical populations.

Neural Reactivity to Reward as a Predictor of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Response in Anxiety and Depression

“…Finally, the stimulus-preceding negativity (SPN) was scored as the mean amplitude 200 ms prior to receiving a reward at a pooling of parietal sites (Pz, P3, and P4). [26] Analyses focused on the anticipation of reward versus loss difference score, that is, more negative values indicate greater differentiation in the ERP when anticipating the possibility of a win compared to a loss.…”

“…In addition to the previously described RewP, which measures response to reward feedback, we also examined the stimulus-preceding negativity (SPN) [25] during reward anticipation and the N2 in response to losses. The SPN is a slow, negative-going wave that has been shown to be enhanced in anticipation of reward, [26] whereas the N2 to losses is apparent at frontocentral electrode sites approximately 200–250 ms following the receipt of a loss. [11,12] While previous studies have yet to examine whether adults with anxiety or depression differ from healthy controls in these ERP components, we examined whether they predicted CBT response, given the previously described relation between internalizing disorders and altered anticipation of reward.…”

The temporal dynamics of reversal learning: P3 amplitude predicts valence-specific behavioral adjustment

“…Recordings were taken from 32 scalp electrodes based on the 10/20 system, with a ground electrode at Fpz. Electrodes were referenced online to a virtual ground point (i.e., reference-free acquisition) formed within the amplifier (Luck, 2014), a method used in previous studies (Healy, Boran, & Smeaton, 2015; Novak & Foti, 2015; Weiler, Hassall, Krigolson, & Heath, 2015). The electrooculogram was recorded from two auxiliary electrodes places 1 cm above and below the left eye, forming a bipolar channel.…”

The effects of reward magnitude on reward processing: An averaged and single trial event-related potential study

“…Second, Sambrook and Goslin's (2015) meta-analysis suggests reward magnitude affects feedback processing beyond the FRN/RewP time window, and the P3b and LPP occur after the FRN/RewP. Whereas the FRN/RewP are theorized to scale with reward magnitude due to their strong link with dopaminergic signaling (Foti et al, 2011;Foti et al, 2015;Holroyd & Coles, 2002), the P3b and LPP are not hypothesized to exhibit such scaling. Thus, both components were analyzed exclusively with averaged ERPs.…”