The effect of graded monetary reward on cognitive event-related potentials and behavior in young healthy adults

Abstract

Temporal correlates of the brain circuit underlying reward processing in healthy adults remain unclear. The current study investigated the P3 and contingent negative variation (CNV) as putative reward-related temporal markers. The effect of sustained monetary reward on these event-related potentials and on behavior was assessed using a warned reaction-time paradigm in 16 young healthy subjects. Monetary reward (0, 1 and 45 cents) varied across blocks of trials. While the CNV was unaffected by money, P3 amplitude was significantly larger for 45 than the 1 and 0 cent conditions. This effect corresponded to the monotonically positive subjective ratings of interest and excitement on the task (45>1>0). These findings suggest a difference between the P3 and CNV; the P3 is sensitive to the sustained effect of relative reward value while the CNV does not vary with reward magnitude. DESCRIPTOR TERMS

The influence of monetary incentives on context processing in younger and older adults: an event-related potential study

“…Thus, the neural activity required for the successful preparation (here, encoding) of an upcoming event seems to be enhanced by the motivation to gain reward. This modulation of the P3b by reward expectancy is in line with results from other studies showing larger P3b amplitudes for reward trials than for trials without reward (Begleiter, Chou, & Aunon, 1983;Krebs et al, 2013;Parvaz, Konova, Tomasi, Volkow, & Goldstein, 2012), as well as for high-as compared to lowreward conditions (Capa, Bouquet, Dreher, & Dufur, 2013;Goldstein et al, 2006). Recently, Krebs and colleagues applied a Stroop task and found increased P3b amplitudes to reward-predicting cues, which were interpreted as increased preparatory attention toward critical features of the upcoming Stroop stimulus that were essential to obtain later reward.…”

“…Furthermore, in a task-switching paradigm, larger P3b amplitudes during response execution on reward trials were associated with a greater investment in WM benefiting fast reaction times (Capa et al, 2013). In addition, the CNV has also been shown to be linked to reward expectancy, since trials indicating reward for fast and correct responses produced larger CNV amplitudes (Capa et al, 2013;Falkenstein, Hoormann, Hohnsbein, & Kleinsorge, 2003; but see Goldstein et al, 2006 Krebs et al, 2013; or the sustained potential [SP] by West & Alain, 2000;West et al, 2005), in that they peaked earlier during trials with than in those without reward, where no amplitude differences were reported. This temporal shift has been interpreted as an earlier start of conflict processing, which was triggered by enhanced attention toward relevant features of the Stroop stimulus, linked to the preceding P3b in Krebs et al's study.…”

Electrophysiological markers of the motivational salience of delay imposition and escape

“…For example, Pierson et al (1987) used a conditioning paradigm in which participants learnt to differentiate between one of three tone stimuli signalling gain, loss and neutral conditions; whilst Goldstein and colleagues (2006) focused on the effect of varying levels of monetary incentive. Goldstein et al (2006) note that differential sensitivity to reward may arise due to personality trait differences amongst participants and, similarly, Pierson et al (1987) found a larger effect in hedonic compared with anhedonic participants, suggesting that individual differences in the ability to experience pleasure may influence the sensitivity of the CNV to reinforcement. In the current study, the enhanced CNV response to Delay Escape relative to Delay No-Escape cues did not differ between time-windows (i.e.…”

“…Despite its commonly observed role in effortful preparation (Brunia et al, 2011;Cant & Bickford, 1967;Van Boxtel & Bocker, 2004), there has been less focus on the CNV in relation to reinforcement and no studies relating to negative reinforcers such as delay. Although there is some evidence that the CNV is modulated by positive reinforcers such as monetary reward (Pierson, et al, 1987), more recent work has not replicated this finding (Goldstein, et al, 2006;Goldstein, et al, 2008). The discrepancy between these results might be due to differences between paradigms.…”

Compromised sensitivity to monetary reward in current cocaine users: An ERP study

“…Within these constraints, we further aimed to inspect differences between the highest and lowest rewards 1 Note that in our previous study these two fractal images had no significant differential effects on the selected ERP components, which included the P300 (Goldstein et al, 2006).…”