ArticlePsychophysiology2024
Reinforcement learning and the reward positivity with aversive outcomes.
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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Distress Intolerance Is Associated With a Greater Reward Positivity to Aversive Avoidance Feedback.Psychophysiology · 2026Article
- The reward positivity is insensitive to reinforcer devaluation.Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience · 2025Article
- Wait for It: Defensive Reactivity and Individual Differences in Contrast Avoidance in the NPU-Reward Task.Psychophysiology · 2025Article
- The reward positivity is insensitive to reinforcer devaluation.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Voice attractiveness affects cooperative behavior in the Stag Hunt Game: evidence from neural electrophysiology.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2025Article
- Perceptual load modulates the delta oscillation and the contribution of delta oscillation to reward positivity during feedback valence encoding.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
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
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
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.