ArticleCognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience2020
Individual differences of conflict monitoring and feedback processing during reinforcement learning in a mock forensic context.
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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Construct validity of questionnaires for the original and revised reinforcement sensitivity theory.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- Individual differences of conflict monitoring and feedback processing during reinforcement learning in a mock forensic context.Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience · 2020Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.