Literature DB >> 26969862

Binary sensitivity of theta activity for gain and loss when monitoring parametric prediction errors.

Denise J C Janssen1, Edita Poljac2, Harold Bekkering3.   

Abstract

Several theories have been proposed to account for the medial frontal activity that is elicited during the evaluation of outcomes. Respectively, these theories claim that the medial frontal response reflects (i) the absolute deviation between the value of an outcome and its expected value (i.e. an absolute prediction error); (ii) the deviation between actual and expected outcomes, with a specific sensitivity to outcomes that are worse than expected (i.e. a negative prediction error); (iii) a binary evaluation in terms of good and bad outcomes. In the current electroencephalography study, participants were presented with cues that induced specific predictions for the values of trial outcomes (a gain or loss of points). The actual outcomes occasionally deviated from the predicted values, producing prediction errors with parametrically varying size. Analysis of the medial frontal theta activity in response to the outcomes demonstrated a specific sensitivity to the occurrence of a loss of points when a gain had been predicted. However, the absolute deviation with respect to the predicted value did not modulate the theta response. This finding is consistent with the idea that outcome monitoring activity measured over medial frontal cortex is sensitive to the binary distinction between good and bad outcomes.
© The Author (2016). Published by Oxford University Press. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Keywords:  EEG; FRN; medial frontal cortex; outcome evaluation; performance monitoring

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26969862      PMCID: PMC4967795          DOI: 10.1093/scan/nsw033

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci        ISSN: 1749-5016            Impact factor:   3.436


  42 in total

1.  Context dependence of the event-related brain potential associated with reward and punishment.

Authors:  Clay B Holroyd; Jeff T Larsen; Jonathan D Cohen
Journal:  Psychophysiology       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 4.016

2.  Brain potentials related to self-generated and external information used for performance monitoring.

Authors:  S V Müller; J Möller; A Rodriguez-Fornells; T F Münte
Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 3.708

3.  Likelihood ratios: a simple and flexible statistic for empirical psychologists.

Authors:  Scott Glover; Peter Dixon
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2004-10

4.  Knowing good from bad: differential activation of human cortical areas by positive and negative outcomes.

Authors:  Sander Nieuwenhuis; Heleen A Slagter; Niels J Alting von Geusau; Dirk J Heslenfeld; Clay B Holroyd
Journal:  Eur J Neurosci       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 3.386

5.  The good, the bad and the neutral: electrophysiological responses to feedback stimuli.

Authors:  Clay B Holroyd; Greg Hajcak; Jeff T Larsen
Journal:  Brain Res       Date:  2006-01-19       Impact factor: 3.252

6.  Discrepancy between feedback negativity and subjective evaluation in gambling.

Authors:  Atsuhito Toyomaki; Harumitsu Murohashi
Journal:  Neuroreport       Date:  2005-11-07       Impact factor: 1.837

7.  Temporal dynamics of reward processing revealed by magnetoencephalography.

Authors:  Nuria Doñamayor; Josep Marco-Pallarés; Marcus Heldmann; M Ariel Schoenfeld; Thomas F Münte
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2011-02-08       Impact factor: 5.038

8.  Context-sensitivity of the feedback-related negativity for zero-value feedback outcomes.

Authors:  Daniela M Pfabigan; Eva-Maria Seidel; Katharina Paul; Arvina Grahl; Uta Sailer; Rupert Lanzenberger; Christian Windischberger; Claus Lamm
Journal:  Biol Psychol       Date:  2014-12-22       Impact factor: 3.251

9.  FieldTrip: Open source software for advanced analysis of MEG, EEG, and invasive electrophysiological data.

Authors:  Robert Oostenveld; Pascal Fries; Eric Maris; Jan-Mathijs Schoffelen
Journal:  Comput Intell Neurosci       Date:  2010-12-23

10.  Feedback-related negativity codes outcome valence, but not outcome expectancy, during reversal learning.

Authors:  A K L von Borries; R J Verkes; B H Bulten; R Cools; E R A de Bruijn
Journal:  Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 3.526

View more
  4 in total

1.  Learning to Synchronize: Midfrontal Theta Dynamics during Rule Switching.

Authors:  Pieter Verbeke; Kate Ergo; Esther De Loof; Tom Verguts
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2020-12-11       Impact factor: 6.167

2.  Neural correlates of acceptance and rejection in online speed dating: An electroencephalography study.

Authors:  Xukai Zhang; M J W van der Molen; Susannah C S A Otieno; Zongling He; Paavo H T Leppänen; Hong Li
Journal:  Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci       Date:  2021-08-20       Impact factor: 3.282

3.  Utility of Cognitive Neural Features for Predicting Mental Health Behaviors.

Authors:  Ryosuke Kato; Pragathi Priyadharsini Balasubramani; Dhakshin Ramanathan; Jyoti Mishra
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2022-04-19       Impact factor: 3.847

4.  The role of trait empathy in the processing of observed actions in a false-belief task.

Authors:  Christian Bellebaum; Marta Ghio; Marie Wollmer; Benjamin Weismüller; Patrizia Thoma
Journal:  Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci       Date:  2020-01-30       Impact factor: 3.436

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.