Literature DB >> 29027071

The Brain's Reward Response Occurs Even Without Actual Reward!

A Fielding1, Y Fu1, E A Franz2.   

Abstract

What if the brain's response to reward occurs even when there is no reward? Wouldn't that be a further concern for people prone to problem gambling and other forms of addiction, like those related to eating? Electroencephalography was employed to investigate this possibility using probabilistic feedback manipulations and measures of known event-related potentials (ERPs) related to reward processing. We tested the hypothesis-that reward-based ERPs would occur even in the absence of a tangible reward and when manipulations on expectation are implicit. The well-known P300 response potential was a key focus, and was assessed in non-gambling volunteer undergraduates on a task involving experimentally-manipulated probabilities of positive or negative feedback comprising three trial types-80, 50, or 20% positive feedback. A feedback stimulus (F1) followed a guess response between two possible outcomes (implicit win/loss), and then a second feedback stimulus (F2) was presented to confirm an alleged 'win' or 'loss' (explicit win/loss). Results revealed that amplitude of the P300 in F1-locked data (implicit manipulation) was larger (more positive) on average for feedback outcomes that were manipulated to be less likely than expected. The effect is pronounced after increased time on task (later trials), even though the majority of participants were not explicitly aware of our probability manipulations. For the explicit effects in F2-locked data, no meaningful or significant effects were observed. These findings point to the existence of proposed success-response mechanisms that operate not only explicitly but also with implicit manipulations that do not involve any direct indication of a win or loss, and are not associated with tangible rewards. Thus, there seems to be a non-explicit form of perception (we call 'implicit') associated with an internal experience of wins/losses (in the absence of actual rewards or losses) that can be measured in associated brain processes. The potential significance of these findings is discussed in terms of implications for problem gambling.

Entities:  

Keywords:  EEG; FRN; Gambling; P300; Reward task

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29027071     DOI: 10.1007/s10899-017-9721-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Gambl Stud        ISSN: 1050-5350


  33 in total

1.  Prevalence and risks of pathological gambling in Sweden.

Authors:  R A Volberg; M W Abbott; S Rönnberg; I M Munck
Journal:  Acta Psychiatr Scand       Date:  2001-10       Impact factor: 6.392

2.  Anticipation of increasing monetary reward selectively recruits nucleus accumbens.

Authors:  B Knutson; C M Adams; G W Fong; D Hommer
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2001-08-15       Impact factor: 6.167

Review 3.  Updating P300: an integrative theory of P3a and P3b.

Authors:  John Polich
Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2007-06-18       Impact factor: 3.708

4.  P3 waves to the discrimination of targets in homogeneous and heterogeneous stimulus sequences.

Authors:  E Courchesne; S A Hillyard; R Y Courchesne
Journal:  Psychophysiology       Date:  1977-11       Impact factor: 4.016

5.  Agency attribution: event-related potentials and outcome monitoring.

Authors:  Jeffery G Bednark; Elizabeth A Franz
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2014-02-07       Impact factor: 1.972

6.  Fooling the brain by mirroring the hand: Brain correlates of the perceptual capture of limb ownership.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Franz; Yan Fu; Matthew Moore; Taylor Winter; Terence Mayne; Ranjan Debnath; Catherine Stringer
Journal:  Restor Neurol Neurosci       Date:  2016-09-21       Impact factor: 2.406

7.  Pre-movement planning processes in people with congenital mirror movements.

Authors:  E A Franz; Y Fu
Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2017-08-02       Impact factor: 3.708

8.  Increased dopamine and serotonin metabolism in rat nucleus accumbens produced by intracranial self-stimulation of medial forebrain bundle as measured by in vivo microdialysis.

Authors:  D Nakahara; N Ozaki; Y Miura; H Miura; T Nagatsu
Journal:  Brain Res       Date:  1989-08-21       Impact factor: 3.252

9.  Motivation from control.

Authors:  Baruch Eitam; Patrick M Kennedy; E Tory Higgins
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2013-01-04       Impact factor: 1.972

10.  Pathological gambling among methadone patients.

Authors:  W Feigelman; P H Kleinman; H R Lesieur; R B Millman; M L Lesser
Journal:  Drug Alcohol Depend       Date:  1995-08       Impact factor: 4.492

View more
  3 in total

1.  Does the Brain's Reward Response Occur Even Without Actual Reward? A Response to Fielding et al. (2017).

Authors:  Benjamin James Dyson; Lewis Forder; Jukka Sundvall
Journal:  J Gambl Stud       Date:  2018-09

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.  Variability in competitive decision-making speed and quality against exploiting and exploitative opponents.

Authors:  Benjamin James Dyson
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-02-03       Impact factor: 4.379

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.