ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2025
The reward positivity is insensitive to reinforcer devaluation.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Successful behavioral adaptation requires an ongoing assessment of rewarding outcomes based on one's current state. A frontocentral ERP associated with reward feedback, the reward positivity (RewP), has been linked to reflect information about reward value and motivational states. It is, however, unclear if changes in the RewP are influenced by changes in reward value as a function of motivational state. To examine this, hungry participants (n=31) completed two rounds of a modified Doors Task incorporating Pavlovian conditioning during EEG recordings and obtained feedback associated with sweet and savory food reinforcers equally matched in pleasantness and desirability. Participants underwent reinforcer devaluation, a paradigm designed to isolate inference-based behavior based on decreasing reward value, in between rounds by eating one of the foods to satiety. Prior to devaluation, participants were hungry and rated both food reinforcers equally pleasant. After devaluation, participants were sated and rated the devalued food, but not the non-devalued food, significantly less pleasant, suggesting a sensory-specific change in reward value. Logistic regression of win-stay/lose-switch behavior during the Doors Task shows participants made sensory-specific adjustments in food preferences during post-devaluation. Non-parametric permutation tests based on the tmax statistic performed revealed no significant differences in RewP amplitudes, suggesting the RewP is insensitive to reinforcer devaluation. This could not be explained by differences in perceived pleasantness or desirability. These findings suggest that affective and motivational factors such as tracking inferences based on decreases in reward value did not modulate the RewP.
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.