ArticleSocial cognitive and affective neuroscience2025
Beyond uniformity: individual sensitivities to reward and punishment shape midfrontal-theta responses to approach avoidance conflict.
Article in Social cognitive and affective neuroscience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Approach-avoidance conflict (AAC) is a core aspect of decision-making, involving competing appetitive and aversive outcomes. Given substantial individual differences in sensitivity to reward and punishment, AAC experiences likely vary across individuals. This study examined the neurocognitive mechanisms underlying AAC, focusing on these individual differences. Participants completed a task with four levels of reward and punishment probabilities (.25, .50, .75, 1), choosing to accept or reject rewards paired with potential punishments. Importantly, we did not find a uniform condition that consistently elicited maximum or minimum AAC across participants. We identified individualized high- and low-conflict conditions using three metrics: reaction time, reward rejection rate, and a composite Behavioural Conflict Index. Mid-frontal theta (MFT) power, an established marker of conflict monitoring, was significantly higher in high-conflict compared to low-conflict trials. Computational modelling revealed variability in participants' weighting of reward and punishment probabilities, reflecting differences in participants' sensitivity to reward and punishment outcomes. Furthermore, self-reported Behavioural Inhibition System scores predicted MFT responses, linking personality traits to AAC processing. These findings demonstrate that MFT power reflects AAC-driven cognitive control, shaped by individual sensitivities and traits. Our results emphasize the importance of personalized conflict definitions for understanding adaptive control in motivationally ambiguous contexts.
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.