It's worse than you thought: the feedback negativity and violations of reward prediction in gambling tasks.

The reinforcement learning theory suggests that the feedback negativity should be larger when feedback is unexpected. Two recent studies found, however, that the feedback negativity was unaffected by outcome probability. To further examine this issue, participants in the present studies made reward predictions on each trial of a gambling task where objective reward probability was indicated by a cue. In Study 1, participants made reward predictions following the cue, but prior to their gambling choice; in Study 2, predictions were made following their gambling choice. Predicted and unpredicted outcomes were associated with equivalent feedback negativities in Study 1. In Study 2, however, the feedback negativity was larger for unpredicted outcomes. These data suggest that the magnitude of the feedback negativity is sensitive to violations of reward prediction, but that this effect may depend on the close coupling of prediction and outcome.

[1]  M. Botvinick,et al.  Error-likelihood prediction in the medial frontal cortex: a critical evaluation. , 2007, Cerebral cortex.

[2]  Jeff T. Larsen,et al.  The good, the bad and the neutral: Electrophysiological responses to feedback stimuli , 2006, Brain Research.

[3]  Clay B. Holroyd,et al.  The feedback-related negativity reflects the binary evaluation of good versus bad outcomes , 2006, Biological Psychology.

[4]  G. A. Reyes del Paso,et al.  Reduced baroreflex cardiac sensitivity predicts increased cognitive performance. , 2006, Psychophysiology.

[5]  R. Dishman,et al.  Cardiorespiratory fitness and laboratory stress: a meta-regression analysis. , 2006, Psychophysiology.

[6]  S. Luck.  An Introduction to the Event-Related Potential Technique , 2005 .

[7]  Clay B. Holroyd,et al.  ERP correlates of feedback and reward processing in the presence and absence of response choice. , 2005, Cerebral cortex.

[8]  Dirk J. Heslenfeld,et al.  Activity in human reward-sensitive brain areas is strongly context dependent , 2005, NeuroImage.

[9]  S. Nieuwenhuis,et al.  Performance monitoring in obsessive-compulsive disorder , 2005, Psychiatry Research.

[10]  Clay B. Holroyd,et al.  Brain potentials associated with expected and unexpected good and bad outcomes. , 2005, Psychophysiology.

[11]  Flavio Tanaka Pereira Oliveira.  Electrophysiological correlates of performance monitoring and error detection in response to augmented feedback , 2005 .

[12]  A. Sanfey,et al.  Independent Coding of Reward Magnitude and Valence in the Human Brain , 2004, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[13]  Clay B. Holroyd,et al.  Reinforcement-related brain potentials from medial frontal cortex: origins and functional significance , 2004, Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews.

[14]  Clay B. Holroyd,et al.  Sensitivity of electrophysiological activity from medial frontal cortex to utilitarian and performance feedback. , 2004, Cerebral cortex.

[15]  Clay B. Holroyd,et al.  A note on the oddball N200 and the feedback ERN , 2004 .

[16]  Clay B. Holroyd,et al.  Errors in reward prediction are re£ected in the event-related brain potential , 2003 .

[17]  D. Tucker,et al.  Electrophysiological Responses to Errors and Feedback in the Process of Action Regulation , 2003, Psychological science.

[18]  W. Schultz.  Getting Formal with Dopamine and Reward , 2002, Neuron.

[19]  Clay B. Holroyd,et al.  The neural basis of human error processing: reinforcement learning, dopamine, and the error-related negativity. , 2002, Psychological review.

[20]  Markus Kiefer,et al.  Human anterior cingulate cortex is activated by negative feedback: evidence from event-related potentials in a guessing task , 2002, Neuroscience Letters.

[21]  Adrian R. Willoughby,et al.  The Medial Frontal Cortex and the Rapid Processing of Monetary Gains and Losses , 2002, Science.

[22]  K. R. Ridderinkhof,et al.  A computational account of altered error processing in older age: Dopamine and the error-related negativity , 2002, Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience.

[23]  C. Braun,et al.  Event-Related Brain Potentials Following Incorrect Feedback in a Time-Estimation Task: Evidence for a Generic Neural System for Error Detection , 1997, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[24]  P. Dayan,et al.  A framework for mesencephalic dopamine systems based on predictive Hebbian learning , 1996, The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience.

[25]  Joel L. Davis,et al.  Adaptive Critics and the Basal Ganglia , 1995 .

[26]  A. Barto,et al.  Adaptive Critics and the Basal Ganglia , 1994 .

[27]  G A Miller,et al.  Digital filtering: background and tutorial for psychophysiologists. , 1992, Psychophysiology.

[28]  Gregory A. Miller,et al.  Generalized Implementation of an Eye Movement Correction Procedure , 1988 .

[29]  E Donchin,et al.  A new method for off-line removal of ocular artifact. , 1983, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[30]  A. Tversky,et al.  Variants of uncertainty , 1982, Cognition.

[31]  E Donchin,et al.  P300 and stimulus categorization: two plus one is not so different from one plus one. , 1980, Psychophysiology.

[32]  S A Hillyard,et al.  P3 waves to the discrimination of targets in homogeneous and heterogeneous stimulus sequences. , 1977, Psychophysiology.

[33]  E. Donchin,et al.  On quantifying surprise: the variation of event-related potentials with subjective probability. , 1977, Psychophysiology.

[34]  Mark Snyder,et al.  Confidence in the prediction and postdiction of an uncertain outcome. , 1970 .