Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26497268›Full record

Trial reportNeuroImage2016

Randomised prior feedback modulates neural signals of outcome monitoring.

Faisal Mushtaq, Richard M Wilkie, Mark A Mon-Williams, Alexandre Schaefer

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in NeuroImage, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

4 authors.

Faisal MushtaqSchool of Psychology, University of Leeds, Leeds, West Yorkshire, UK. Electronic address: f.mushtaq@leeds.ac.uk.
Richard M WilkieSchool of Psychology, University of Leeds, Leeds, West Yorkshire, UK.
Mark A Mon-WilliamsSchool of Psychology, University of Leeds, Leeds, West Yorkshire, UK.
Alexandre SchaeferSchool of Business, Monash University, Sunway Campus, Selangor, Malaysia. Electronic address: alexandre.schaefer@monash.edu.

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/H001476Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/H001476/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Substantial evidence indicates that decision outcomes are typically evaluated relative to expectations learned from relatively long sequences of previous outcomes. This mechanism is thought to play a key role in general learning and adaptation processes but relatively little is known about the determinants of outcome evaluation when the capacity to learn from series of prior events is difficult or impossible. To investigate this issue, we examined how the feedback-related negativity (FRN) is modulated by information briefly presented before outcome evaluation. The FRN is a brain potential time-locked to the delivery of decision feedback and it is widely thought to be sensitive to prior expectations. We conducted a multi-trial gambling task in which outcomes at each trial were fully randomised to minimise the capacity to learn from long sequences of prior outcomes. Event-related potentials for outcomes (Win/Loss) in the current trial (Outcomet) were separated according to the type of outcomes that occurred in the preceding two trials (Outcomet-1 and Outcomet-2). We found that FRN voltage was more positive during the processing of win feedback when it was preceded by wins at Outcomet-1 compared to win feedback preceded by losses at Outcomet-1. However, no influence of preceding outcomes was found on FRN activity relative to the processing of loss feedback. We also found no effects of Outcomet-2 on FRN amplitude relative to current feedback. Additional analyses indicated that this effect was largest for trials in which participants selected a decision different to the gamble chosen in the previous trial. These findings are inconsistent with models that solely relate the FRN to prediction error computation. Instead, our results suggest that if stable predictions about future events are weak or non-existent, then outcome processing can be determined by affective systems. More specifically, our results indicate that the FRN is likely to reflect the activity of positive affective systems in these contexts. Importantly, our findings indicate that a multifactorial explanation of the nature of the FRN is necessary and such an account must incorporate affective and motivational factors in outcome processing.

Indexed as

RewardAdolescentAdultBrainChoice BehaviorElectroencephalographyEvoked PotentialsFeedback, PsychologicalFemaleHumansMaleYoung AdultAffective primingFeedback-related negativityMonitoringReward prediction errorSalienceShort-term expectationsUncertainty

Identifiers

PMID26497268
PMCPMC4692517

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.