Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26862585›Full record

ArticleData in brief2016

Feedback-related potentials in a gambling task with randomised reward.

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

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Data in brief, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. 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

5 authors.

Faisal MushtaqSchool of Psychology, University of Leeds, Leeds, West Yorkshire, United Kingdom.
Pablo Puente GuillenSchool of Psychology, University of Leeds, Leeds, West Yorkshire, United Kingdom; School of Computing, University of Leeds, Leeds, West Yorkshire, United Kingdom.
Richard M WilkieSchool of Psychology, University of Leeds, Leeds, West Yorkshire, United Kingdom.
Mark A Mon-WilliamsSchool of Psychology, University of Leeds, Leeds, West Yorkshire, United Kingdom.
Alexandre SchaeferSchool of Business, Monash University, Sunway Campus, Selangor, Malaysia.

Funding

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

Abstract

Event-related potentials (ERPs) time-locked to decision outcomes are reported. Participants engaged in a gambling task (see [1] for details) in which they decided between a risky and a safe option (presented as different coloured shapes) on each trial (416 in total). Each decision was associated with (fully randomised) feedback about the reward outcome (Win/Loss) and its magnitude (varying as a function of decision response; 5-9 points for Risky decisions and 1-4 points for Safe decisions). Here, we show data demonstrating: (a) the influence of Win feedback in the preceding outcome (Outcome t-1) on activity related to the current outcome (Outcome t ); (b) difference wave analysis for outcome expectancy- separating Expected Outcomes (consecutive Loss trials subtracted from consecutive reward) from Unexpected Outcomes (subtracting Loss t-1Win t trials from Win t-1Loss t trials); (c) difference waves separating Switch and Stay responses for Outcome Expectancy; (d) the effect of magnitude induced by decisions (Risk t vs. Safe t ) on Outcome Expectancy; and finally, (e) expectations reflected by response switch direction (Risk to Safe responses vs. Safe to Risk t ) on the FRN at Outcome t .

Indexed as

Decision-makingEvent-related potentialsFeedback-relatedNegativityReward prediction errorReward processing

Identifiers

PMID26862585
PMCPMC4706610

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.