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

Comparing the motivational value of rewards and losses in an EEG-pupillometry study

We found earlier that performance-contingent rewards lead to faster performance than equivalent losses [Carsten, Hoofs, Boehler, & Krebs, 2019. Motivation Science, 5(3). http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/mot0000117]. Here, we further tested the hypothesis that motivation to gain rewards is higher than to avoid losses, even when incentive values are matched. As implicit markers of motivation, we assessed electroencephalography (EEG) focusing on the P3 after target and feedback onset, and the Feedback-Related Negativity (FRN), as well as simultaneously recorded pupil size. Comparing only reward and loss prospect trials in Experiment 1, we found no consistent differences in behavior and electrophysiological markers of motivation, although pupil data suggested higher arousal after feedback in potential-loss trials. Including additional no-incentive trials in Experiment 2, we found consistent evidence that motivation to gain rewards was higher than to avoid losses: In line with behavior, the target-P3 was most pronounced for reward-related stimuli, followed by loss and no-incentive ones. This same ranking was found in the P3 and the FRN after positive outcomes (i.e., reward, avoided loss, and correct feedback in no-incentive trials). Negative outcomes featured a different pattern in line with the pupil response, which suggests that losses are emotionally salient events, without invigorating behavior proportionally. In sum, these findings suggest that the motivation to gain rewards is more pronounced than motivation to avoid equivalent losses, at least in tasks promoting transient increases in attention triggered by incentive prospect. These motivational differences may arise as avoided losses are not profitable in the long term, in contrast to gained rewards.

Individual differences of conflict monitoring and feedback processing during reinforcement learning in a mock forensic context

This study investigated individual differences of conflict monitoring (N2 component), feedback processing (feedback negativity component), and reinforcement learning in a discrimination learning task using a mock (fictitious) forensic scenario to set participants in a semantic task context. We investigated individual differences of anxiety-related, impulsivity-related traits and reasoning ability during trial-and-error learning of mock suspect and nonsuspect faces. Thereby, we asked how the differential investment of cognitive-motivational processes facilitates learning in a mock forensic context. As learning can be studied by means of time-on-task effects (i.e., variations of cognitive processes across task blocks), we investigated the differential investment of cognitive-motivational processes block-wise in N = 100 participants. By performing structural equation modeling, we demonstrate that conflict monitoring decreased across task blocks, whereas the percentage of correct responses increased across task blocks. Individuals with higher reasoning scores and higher impulsivity-related traits relied rather on feedback processing (i.e., external indicators) during reinforcement learning. Individuals with higher anxiety-related traits intensified their conflict monitoring throughout the task to learn successfully. Observation by relevant others intensified conflict monitoring more than nonobservation. Our data highlight that individual differences and social context modulate the intensity of information processing in a discrimination learning task using a mock forensic task scenario. We discuss our data with regard to recent cognitive-motivational approaches and in terms of reinforcement learning.