Premium
When the outcome is different than expected: Subjective expectancy shapes reward prediction error at the FRN level
Author(s) -
Walentowska Wioleta,
Severo Mario Carlo,
Moors Agnes,
Pourtois Gilles
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
psychophysiology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.661
H-Index - 156
eISSN - 1469-8986
pISSN - 0048-5772
DOI - 10.1111/psyp.13456
Subject(s) - p3b , psychology , expectancy theory , negativity effect , electroencephalography , contingent negative variation , event related potential , cognitive psychology , action (physics) , developmental psychology , audiology , social psychology , neuroscience , medicine , physics , quantum mechanics
Converging evidence in human electrophysiology suggests that evaluative feedback provided during performance monitoring (PM) elicits two distinctive and successive ERP components: the feedback‐related negativity (FRN) and the P3b. Whereas the FRN has previously been linked to reward prediction error (RPE), the P3b has been conceived as reflecting motivational or attentional processes following the early processing of the RPE, including action value updating. However, it remains unclear whether these two consecutive neurophysiological effects depend on the direction of the unexpectedness (better‐ or worse‐than‐expected outcomes; signed RPE) or instead only on the degree of unexpectedness irrespective of direction (i.e., unsigned RPE). To address this question, we devised an experiment in which we manipulated the objective reward probability and the subjective reward expectancy (via instructions) in a factorial within‐subject design and explored amplitude changes of the FRN and the P3b. A 64‐channel EEG was recorded while 32 participants performed a speeded go/no‐go task in which evaluative feedback based on the reward probability either violated expectancy (thereby creating a RPE) or did not. This violation corresponded either to better‐ or worse‐than‐expected events. Results showed that the FRN was larger when RPE occurred than when it did not, but irrespective of the direction of this violation. Interestingly, in these two conditions, action value was updated for the positive feedback selectively, as shown by the P3b amplitude. These results obey a two‐stage model of PM assuming that unsigned RPE is first rapidly detected (FRN level) before the positive feedback’s value is updated selectively (P3b effect).