Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37994210›Full record

ArticlePsychophysiology2024

Reinforcement learning and the reward positivity with aversive outcomes.

Elizabeth A Bauer, Brandon K Watanabe, Annmarie MacNamara

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psychophysiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. The reward positivity is insensitive to reinforcer devaluation.Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. The reward positivity is insensitive to reinforcer devaluation.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. 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.

Elizabeth A BauerDepartment of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5521-7712
Brandon K WatanabeDepartment of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA.
Annmarie MacNamaraDepartment of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0399-973X

Funding

HARM-A: A neurobiological predictor of comorbidity and stress reactivity in anxiety disordersR01MH125083 · NIMH · TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY · PI MACNAMARA, ANNMARIE EILEEN · 2021 to 2025
$3.3M
Training in Learning and MemoryT32MH106454 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN · PI PRESTON, ALISON R · 2015 to 2025
$2.1M
NIMH NIH HHS 5T32MH106454-08NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH125083NIMH NIH HHS T32 MH106454
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The reinforcement learning (RL) theory of the reward positivity (RewP), an event-related potential (ERP) component that measures reward responsivity, suggests that the RewP should be largest when positive outcomes are unexpected and has been supported by work using appetitive outcomes (e.g., money). However, the RewP can also be elicited by the absence of aversive outcomes (e.g., shock). The limited work to-date that has manipulated expectancy while using aversive outcomes has not supported the predictions of RL theory. Nonetheless, this work has been difficult to reconcile with the appetitive literature because the RewP was not observed as a reward signal in these studies, which used passive tasks that did not involve participant choice. Here, we tested the predictions of the RL theory by manipulating expectancy in an active/choice-based threat-of-shock doors task that was previously found to elicit the RewP as a reward signal. Moreover, we used principal components analysis to isolate the RewP from overlapping ERP components. Eighty participants viewed pairs of doors surrounded by a red or green border; shock delivery was expected (80%) following red-bordered doors and unexpected (20%) following green-bordered doors. The RewP was observed as a reward signal (i.e., no shock > shock) that was not potentiated for unexpected feedback. In addition, the RewP was larger overall for unexpected (vs expected) feedback. Therefore, the RewP appears to reflect the additive (not interactive) effects of reward and expectancy, challenging the RL theory of the RewP, at least when reward is defined as the absence of an aversive outcome.

Indexed as

ElectroencephalographyReinforcement, PsychologyEvoked PotentialsHumansLearningRewardERPpunishmentreinforcement learningreward positivity (RewP)

Identifiers

PMID37994210
PMCPMC10939817

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.