Literature DB >> 26196667

Principal components analysis of reward prediction errors in a reinforcement learning task.

Thomas D Sambrook1, Jeremy Goslin2.   

Abstract

Models of reinforcement learning represent reward and punishment in terms of reward prediction errors (RPEs), quantitative signed terms describing the degree to which outcomes are better than expected (positive RPEs) or worse (negative RPEs). An electrophysiological component known as feedback related negativity (FRN) occurs at frontocentral sites 240-340ms after feedback on whether a reward or punishment is obtained, and has been claimed to neurally encode an RPE. An outstanding question however, is whether the FRN is sensitive to the size of both positive RPEs and negative RPEs. Previous attempts to answer this question have examined the simple effects of RPE size for positive RPEs and negative RPEs separately. However, this methodology can be compromised by overlap from components coding for unsigned prediction error size, or "salience", which are sensitive to the absolute size of a prediction error but not its valence. In our study, positive and negative RPEs were parametrically modulated using both reward likelihood and magnitude, with principal components analysis used to separate out overlying components. This revealed a single RPE encoding component responsive to the size of positive RPEs, peaking at ~330ms, and occupying the delta frequency band. Other components responsive to unsigned prediction error size were shown, but no component sensitive to negative RPE size was found.
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26196667     DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.07.032

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neuroimage        ISSN: 1053-8119            Impact factor:   6.556


  12 in total

1.  EEG correlates of physical effort and reward processing during reinforcement learning.

Authors:  Dimitrios J Palidis; Paul L Gribble
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2020-07-29       Impact factor: 2.714

2.  Win, lose, or draw: Examining salience, reward memory, and depression with the reward positivity.

Authors:  Nathan M Hager; Matt R Judah; Eric Rawls
Journal:  Psychophysiology       Date:  2021-10-12       Impact factor: 4.016

3.  Expectancy effects in feedback processing are explained primarily by time-frequency delta not theta.

Authors:  Adreanna T M Watts; Matthew D Bachman; Edward M Bernat
Journal:  Biol Psychol       Date:  2017-09-01       Impact factor: 3.251

Review 4.  ERP indices of performance monitoring and feedback processing in psychosis: A meta-analysis.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Martin; Amanda McCleery; Melody M Moore; Jonathan K Wynn; Michael F Green; William P Horan
Journal:  Int J Psychophysiol       Date:  2018-08-10       Impact factor: 2.997

5.  The aversion positivity: Mediofrontal cortical potentials reflect parametric aversive prediction errors and drive behavioral modification following negative reinforcement.

Authors:  Eric Rawls; Connie Lamm
Journal:  Cortex       Date:  2021-03-27       Impact factor: 4.644

6.  To Know or Not to Know? Theta and Delta Reflect Complementary Information about an Advanced Cue before Feedback in Decision-Making.

Authors:  Jing Wang; Zhaofeng Chen; Xiaozhe Peng; Tiantian Yang; Peng Li; Fengyu Cong; Hong Li
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2016-10-06

7.  The Monetary Incentive Delay (MID) Task Induces Changes in Sensory Processing: ERP Evidence.

Authors:  Elena Krugliakova; Alexey Gorin; Tommaso Fedele; Yury Shtyrov; Victoria Moiseeva; Vasily Klucharev; Anna Shestakova
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2019-11-01       Impact factor: 3.169

8.  Emotional State and Feedback-Related Negativity Induced by Positive, Negative, and Combined Reinforcement.

Authors:  Shuyuan Xu; Yuyan Sun; Min Huang; Yanhong Huang; Jing Han; Xuemei Tang; Wei Ren
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2021-05-10

9.  Temporal Fluctuation of Mood in Gaming Task Modulates Feedback Negativity: EEG Study With Virtual Reality.

Authors:  Yusuke Yokota; Yasushi Naruse
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2021-06-03       Impact factor: 3.169

10.  Slow Is Also Fast: Feedback Delay Affects Anxiety and Outcome Evaluation.

Authors:  Xukai Zhang; Yi Lei; Hang Yin; Peng Li; Hong Li
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2018-01-25       Impact factor: 3.169

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.