ArticleThe European journal of neuroscience2022
The value of an action: Impact of motor behaviour on outcome processing and stimulus preference.
Article in The European journal of neuroscience, 2022. 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.
- Neural dynamics underlying the illusion of control during reward processing.Social cognitive and affective neuroscience · 2024Article
- The value of an action: Impact of motor behaviour on outcome processing and stimulus preference.The European journal of neuroscience · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
While influences of Pavlovian associations on instrumental behaviour are well established, we still do not know how motor actions affect the formation of Pavlovian associations. To address this question, we designed a task in which participants were presented with neutral stimuli, half of which were paired with an active response, half with a passive waiting period. Stimuli had an 80% chance of predicting either a monetary gain or loss. We compared the feedback-related negativity (FRN) in response to predictive stimuli and outcomes, as well as directed phase synchronization before and after outcome presentation between trials with versus without a motor response. We found a larger FRN amplitude in response to outcomes presented after a motor response (active trials). This effect was driven by a positive deflection in active reward trials, which was absent in passive reward trials. Connectivity analysis revealed that the motor action reversed the direction of the phase synchronization at the time of the feedback presentation: Top-down information flow during the outcome anticipation phase in active trials, but bottom-up information flow in passive trials. This main effect of action was mirrored in behavioural data showing that participants preferred stimuli associated with an active response. Our findings suggest an influence of neural systems that initiate motor actions on neural systems involved in reward processing. We suggest that motor actions might modulate the brain responses to feedback by affecting the dynamics of brain activity towards optimizing the processing of the resulting action outcome.
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.