Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24836852›Full record

ArticleNeuroscience2014

Reward contingencies and the recalibration of task monitoring and reward systems: a high-density electrical mapping study.

K P Morie, P De Sanctis, J J Foxe

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neuroscience, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

K P MorieThe Sheryl and Daniel R. Tishman Cognitive Neurophysiology Laboratory, Children's Evaluation and Rehabilitation Center (CERC), Department of Pediatrics, Albert Einstein College of Medicine & Montefiore Medical Center, Van Etten Building, Wing 1C, 1300 Morris Park Avenue, Bronx, NY 10461, USA; Program in Cognitive Neuroscience, The Graduate Center of the City University of New York, 365 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10016, USA; The Cognitive Neurophysiology Laboratory at the Nathan S. Kline Institute for Psychiatric Research, Orangeburg, NY 10962, USA.
P De SanctisThe Sheryl and Daniel R. Tishman Cognitive Neurophysiology Laboratory, Children's Evaluation and Rehabilitation Center (CERC), Department of Pediatrics, Albert Einstein College of Medicine & Montefiore Medical Center, Van Etten Building, Wing 1C, 1300 Morris Park Avenue, Bronx, NY 10461, USA; Program in Cognitive Neuroscience, The Graduate Center of the City University of New York, 365 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10016, USA; The Cognitive Neurophysiology Laboratory at the Nathan S. Kline Institute for Psychiatric Research, Orangeburg, NY 10962, USA.
J J FoxeThe Sheryl and Daniel R. Tishman Cognitive Neurophysiology Laboratory, Children's Evaluation and Rehabilitation Center (CERC), Department of Pediatrics, Albert Einstein College of Medicine & Montefiore Medical Center, Van Etten Building, Wing 1C, 1300 Morris Park Avenue, Bronx, NY 10461, USA; Program in Cognitive Neuroscience, The Graduate Center of the City University of New York, 365 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10016, USA; The Dominick P. Purpura Department of Neuroscience, Rose F. Kennedy Center, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, 1410 Pelham Parkway South, Bronx, NY 10461, USA; The Cognitive Neurophysiology Laboratory at the Nathan S. Kline Institute for Psychiatric Research, Orangeburg, NY 10962, USA. Electronic address: john.foxe@einstein.yu.edu.

Funding

Translational Neuroimaging CoreP30HD071593 · NICHD · ALBERT EINSTEIN COLLEGE OF MEDICINE, INC · PI WALKLEY, STEVEN UPSHAW · 2011 to 2015
$5.6M
Sensory Processing and Integration in AutismR01MH085322 · NIMH · CITY COLLEGE OF NEW YORK · PI FOXE, JOHN J, MOLHOLM, SOPHIE · 2009 to 2013
$2.8M
NICHD NIH HHS P30 HD071593NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH085322NIMH NIH HHS R01 - MH085322
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Task execution almost always occurs in the context of reward-seeking or punishment-avoiding behavior. As such, ongoing task-monitoring systems are influenced by reward anticipation systems. In turn, when a task has been executed either successfully or unsuccessfully, future iterations of that task will be re-titrated on the basis of the task outcome. Here, we examined the neural underpinnings of the task-monitoring and reward-evaluation systems to better understand how they govern reward-seeking behavior. Twenty-three healthy adult participants performed a task where they accrued points that equated to real world value (gift cards) by responding as rapidly as possible within an allotted timeframe, while success rate was titrated online by changing the duration of the timeframe dependent on participant performance. Informative cues initiated each trial, indicating the probability of potential reward or loss (four levels from very low to very high). We manipulated feedback by first informing participants of task success/failure, after which a second feedback signal indicated actual magnitude of reward/loss. High-density electroencephalography (EEG) recordings allowed for examination of event-related potentials (ERPs) to the informative cues and in turn, to both feedback signals. Distinct ERP components associated with reward cues, task-preparatory and task-monitoring processes, and reward feedback processes were identified. Unsurprisingly, participants displayed increased ERP amplitudes associated with task-preparatory processes following cues that predicted higher chances of reward. They also rapidly updated reward and loss prediction information dependent on task performance after the first feedback signal. Finally, upon reward receipt, initial reward probability was no longer taken into account. Rather, ERP measures suggested that only the magnitude of actual reward or loss was now processed. Reward and task-monitoring processes are clearly dissociable, but interact across very fast timescales to update reward predictions as information about task success or failure is accrued. Careful delineation of these processes will be useful in future investigations in clinical groups where such processes are suspected of having gone awry.

Indexed as

RewardAdultAnticipation, PsychologicalBrainBrain MappingCuesElectroencephalographyEvoked PotentialsExecutive FunctionFeedback, PsychologicalFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeuropsychological TestsProbabilityEEGERPmotivationpunishmentrewardtask monitoring

Identifiers

PMID24836852
PMCPMC4209734

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.