Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32043207›Full record

ArticleCognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience2020

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

Anja Leue, Katharina Nieden, Vera Scheuble, André Beauducel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience, 2020. 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. Article
  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

4 authors.

Anja LeueInstitute of Psychology, University of Kiel, Olshausenstrasse 75, 24118, Kiel, Germany. leue@psychologie.uni-kiel.de.
Katharina NiedenInstitute of Psychology, University of Kiel, Olshausenstrasse 75, 24118, Kiel, Germany.
Vera ScheubleInstitute of Psychology, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
André BeauducelInstitute of Psychology, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

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.

Indexed as

FeedbackReinforcement, PsychologyAdolescentAdultCognitionDecision MakingEvoked PotentialsFemaleHumansIndividualityLearningMaleMotivationYoung AdultConflict monitoringERPPersonalityReasoningReinforcement learning

Identifiers

PMID32043207
PMCPMC7105439

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.