Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37485986›Full record

ArticlePsychophysiology2023

The neural correlates of continuous feedback processing.

Cameron D Hassall, Yan Yan, Laurence T Hunt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psychophysiology, 2023. 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. Interconnections of screen time with neuroinflammation.Molecular and cellular biochemistry · 2025
    Review
  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

3 authors.

Cameron D HassallDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9283-2813
Yan YanDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8720-2478
Laurence T HuntDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8393-8533

Funding

Department of HealthWellcome Trust 203139/Z/16/ZWellcome Trust 208789/Z/17/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Feedback processing is commonly studied by analyzing the brain's response to discrete rather than continuous events. Such studies have led to the hypothesis that rapid phasic midbrain dopaminergic activity tracks reward prediction errors (RPEs), the effects of which are measurable at the scalp via electroencephalography (EEG). Although studies using continuous feedback are sparse, recent animal work suggests that moment-to-moment changes in reward are tracked by slowly ramping midbrain dopaminergic activity. Some have argued that these ramping signals index state values rather than RPEs. Our goal here was to develop an EEG measure of continuous feedback processing in humans, then test whether its behavior could be accounted for by the RPE hypothesis. Participants completed a stimulus-response learning task in which a continuous reward cue gradually increased or decreased over time. A regression-based unmixing approach revealed EEG activity with a topography and time course consistent with the stimulus-preceding negativity (SPN), a scalp potential previously linked to reward anticipation and tonic dopamine release. Importantly, this reward-related activity depended on outcome expectancy: as predicted by the RPE hypothesis, activity for expected reward cues was reduced compared to unexpected reward cues. These results demonstrate the possibility of using human scalp-recorded potentials to track continuous feedback processing, and test candidate hypotheses of this activity.

Indexed as

Anticipation, PsychologicalEvoked PotentialsElectroencephalographyFeedbackFeedback, PsychologicalHumansRewarddopamineEEGERPfeedbackrewardstimulus-preceding negativity (SPN)

Identifiers

PMID37485986
PMCPMC10851313

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.