The effect of task demand and incentive on neurophysiological and cardiovascular markers of effort

Abstract

According to motivational intensity theory, effort is proportional to the level of task demand provided that success is possible and successful performance is deemed worthwhile. The current study represents a simultaneous manipulation of demand (working memory load) and success importance (financial incentive) to investigate neurophysiological (EEG) and cardiovascular measures of effort. A 2 x 2 repeated-measures study was conducted where 18 participants performed a n-back task under three conditions of demand: easy (1-back), hard (4-back) and very hard (7-back). In addition, participants performed these tasks in the presence of performance-contingent financial incentive or in a no-incentive (pilot trial) condition.Three bands of EEG activity were quantified: theta (4-7Hz), lower-alpha (7.5-10Hz) and upper-alpha (10.5-13Hz). Fronto-medial activity in the theta band and activity in the upper-alpha band at frontal, central and parietal sites were sensitive to demand and indicated greatest effort when the task was challenging and success was possible. Mean systolic blood pressure and activity in the lower-alpha band at parietal sites were also sensitive to demand but also increased in the incentive condition across all levels of task demand. The results of the study largely support the predictions of motivational intensity using neurophysiological markers of effort. • Systolic blood pressure was sensitive to both demand and incentive page 3

FNIRS activity in the prefrontal cortex and motivational intensity: impact of working memory load, financial reward, and correlation-based signal improvement

“…Rationale: The motivational intensity model predicts that participants will invest effort in a proportionate fashion with increased task demand unless the likelihood of success is perceived to be low. This pattern of activation was observed in an earlier study of working memory demand 16 with respect to EEG measures of fronto-central theta and parietal alpha. This study will replicate the same protocol wherein participants are exposed to a full continuum of working memory demand, from low demand where success is extremely likely to extreme demand when the success likelihood is very low.…”

“…The levels of working memory load were selected on the basis of an earlier study. 16 Participants: Thirty participants were recruited from the University population of undergraduate and postgraduate students. The mean age of the participants was 21.09 years (s.d.…”

“…One exception was an EEG study that utilized the n-back task to investigate motivational intensity and success importance. 16 In this study, participants performed three versions of the n-back task: 1-back, 4-back, and 7-back, designed to represent easy, hard, and excessive (overload) levels of demand. The authors reported that frontomedial theta activity was significantly higher at hard demand compared with the other two conditions as predicted by motivational intensity theory; the same pattern was found for upper-alpha activity across frontal, central, and parietal sites.…”

An Integrative Model of Effortful Control

“…The easiest way to observe fluctuations in the effort signal is certainly the use of EEG to observe spectral variation (i.e., power of theta and alpha rhythm) in the mid-central region of the scalp, just above the ACC, during the first and the second tasks of the sequential protocol over time. This technique has already been used by different authors (Fairclough and Ewing, 2017;Puma et al, 2018) and seems relatively reliable. Another approach is to use the event-related potential (ERP) technique to observe variations in the amplitude of some theta-related ERP components in the second task of a sequential protocol.…”

A Neuroergonomics Approach to Mental Workload, Engagement and Human Performance

“…MPFC (Harrivel et al, 2013;Durantin et al, 2015) DLPFC (Harrivel et al, 2013) DLPFC (Durantin et al, 2014;Fairclough et al, 2019) Left PFC (Kalia et al, 2018) occipital lobe (Kojima and Suzuki, 2010) EEG α power over occipital sites (Gouraud et al, 2018) (α and (β power (auditory stimuli) (Braboszcz and Delorme, 2011) (θ power (auditory stimuli) (Braboszcz and Delorme, 2011) N1 (Kam et al, 2011) N4 (O'Connell et al, 2009) P1 (Kam et al, 2011) P2 (Braboszcz and Delorme, 2011) P3 (Schooler et al, 2011) frontal θ power (Gärtner et al, 2014) P3 (Dierolf et al, 2017) frontal (θ power and parietal (α power (Ewing et al, 2016;Fairclough and Ewing, 2017) Event Related Coherence between midfrontal and right-frontal electrodes (Carrillo-De-La-Pena and García-Larrea, 2007) (α band power (Mathewson et al, 2009) P1 (Pourtois et al, 2006;Mathewson et al, 2009) P2 (Mathewson et al, 2009) N170 (Pourtois et al, 2006) P3 (Pourtois et al, 2006;Mathewson et al, 2009) N1 (Callan et al, 2018;Dehais et al, 2019a,b) P3 (Puschmann et al, 2013;Scannella et al, 2013;Giraudet et al, 2015b;Dehais et al, 2019a,b) (α power in IFG (Dehais et al, 2...…”