Trial reportNeuroImage2016
Randomised prior feedback modulates neural signals of outcome monitoring.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- DeePay: deep learning decodes EEG to predict consumer's willingness to pay for neuromarketing.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2023Article
- Sequential gains and losses during gambling feedback: Differential effects in time-frequency delta and theta measures.Psychophysiology · 2022Article
- Distinct Neural Signatures of Outcome Monitoring After Selection and Execution Errors.Journal of cognitive neuroscience · 2022Article
- Risk decision: The self-charity discrepancies in electrophysiological responses to outcome evaluation.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2022Article
- Event-related brain potentials reflect predictive coding of anticipated economic change.Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience · 2020Article
- Can Brain Waves Really Tell If a Product Will Be Purchased? Inferring Consumer Preferences From Single-Item Brain Potentials.Frontiers in integrative neuroscience · 2019Article
- Event-Related Potentials in Relation to Risk-Taking: A Systematic Review.Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience · 2018Article
- Gender differences in reward and punishment for monetary and social feedback in children: An ERP study.PloS one · 2017Article
- Hierarchical effects on target detection and conflict monitoring.Scientific reports · 2016Article
- Feedback-related potentials in a gambling task with randomised reward.Data in brief · 2016Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.