Literature DB >> 23094592

Prospect theory does not describe the feedback-related negativity value function.

Thomas D Sambrook1, Matthew Roser, Jeremy Goslin.   

Abstract

Humans handle uncertainty poorly. Prospect theory accounts for this with a value function in which possible losses are overweighted compared to possible gains, and the marginal utility of rewards decreases with size. fMRI studies have explored the neural basis of this value function. A separate body of research claims that prediction errors are calculated by midbrain dopamine neurons. We investigated whether the prospect theoretic effects shown in behavioral and fMRI studies were present in midbrain prediction error coding by using the feedback-related negativity, an ERP component believed to reflect midbrain prediction errors. Participants' stated satisfaction with outcomes followed prospect theory but their feedback-related negativity did not, instead showing no effect of marginal utility and greater sensitivity to potential gains than losses.
Copyright © 2012 Society for Psychophysiological Research.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23094592     DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2012.01482.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychophysiology        ISSN: 0048-5772            Impact factor:   4.016


  6 in total

1.  The Context Matters: Outcome Probability and Expectation Mismatch Modulate the Feedback Negativity When Self-Evaluation of Response Correctness Is Possible.

Authors:  Anja Leue; Carmen Cano Rodilla; André Beauducel
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2015-12-09       Impact factor: 3.411

2.  Event-Related Potentials in Relation to Risk-Taking: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Dilushi Chandrakumar; Daniel Feuerriegel; Stefan Bode; Megan Grech; Hannah A D Keage
Journal:  Front Behav Neurosci       Date:  2018-06-19       Impact factor: 3.558

3.  Reward prediction error in the ERP following unconditioned aversive stimuli.

Authors:  Harry J Stewardson; Thomas D Sambrook
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-10-07       Impact factor: 4.379

4.  Relative changes from prior reward contingencies can constrain brain correlates of outcome monitoring.

Authors:  Faisal Mushtaq; Gijsbert Stoet; Amy Rachel Bland; Alexandre Schaefer
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-06-20       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Neural evidence for description dependent reward processing in the framing effect.

Authors:  Rongjun Yu; Ping Zhang
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2014-03-27       Impact factor: 4.677

6.  Randomised prior feedback modulates neural signals of outcome monitoring.

Authors:  Faisal Mushtaq; Richard M Wilkie; Mark A Mon-Williams; Alexandre Schaefer
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2015-10-20       Impact factor: 6.556

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.