Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37334979›Full record

ArticleHuman brain mapping2023

Neural dissociation between reward and salience prediction errors through the lens of optimistic bias.

Ya Zheng, Shuting Mei

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Human brain mapping, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Neural dynamics underlying the illusion of control during reward processing.Social cognitive and affective neuroscience · 2024
    Article
  5. 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

2 authors.

Ya ZhengDepartment of Psychology, Guangzhou University, Guangzhou, China.ORCID 0000-0002-7469-5955
Shuting MeiSchool of Psychological and Cognitive Sciences, Peking University, Beijing, China.ORCID 0000-0003-1681-2372

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The question of how the brain represents reward prediction errors is central to reinforcement learning and adaptive, goal-directed behavior. Previous studies have revealed prediction error representations in multiple electrophysiological signatures, but it remains elusive whether these electrophysiological correlates underlying prediction errors are sensitive to valence (in a signed form) or to salience (in an unsigned form). One possible reason concerns the loose correspondence between objective probability and subjective prediction resulting from the optimistic bias, that is, the tendency to overestimate the likelihood of encountering positive future events. In the present electroencephalography (EEG) study, we approached this question by directly measuring participants' idiosyncratic, trial-to-trial prediction errors elicited by subjective and objective probabilities across two experiments. We adopted monetary gain and loss feedback in Experiment 1 and positive and negative feedback as communicated by the same zero-value feedback in Experiment 2. We provided electrophysiological evidence in time and time-frequency domains supporting both reward and salience prediction error signals. Moreover, we showed that these electrophysiological signatures were highly flexible and sensitive to an optimistic bias and various forms of salience. Our findings shed new light on multiple presentations of prediction error in the human brain, which differ in format and functional role.

Indexed as

ElectroencephalographyEvoked PotentialsBrainHumansReinforcement, PsychologyRewardEEG dynamicsoptimistic biasreward prediction errorsalience prediction error

Identifiers

PMID37334979
PMCPMC10365237

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.