Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
BioMed Research International
Volume 2015 (2015), Article ID 726798, 11 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/726798
Research Article

The Context Matters: Outcome Probability and Expectation Mismatch Modulate the Feedback Negativity When Self-Evaluation of Response Correctness Is Possible

1Institute of Psychology, University of Kiel, 24118 Kiel, Germany
2Institute of Psychology, University of Bonn, 53111 Bonn, Germany

Received 27 August 2015; Revised 7 November 2015; Accepted 8 November 2015

Academic Editor: Antonino Vallesi

Copyright © 2015 Anja Leue et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. A. Falk, E. Fehr, and U. Fischbacher, “On the nature of fair behavior,” Economic Inquiry, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 20–26, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  2. A. Falk, E. Fehr, and U. Fischbacher, “Testing theories of fairness—intentions matter,” Games and Economic Behavior, vol. 62, no. 1, pp. 287–303, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet · View at Scopus
  3. J. Moll, R. Zahn, R. de Oliveira-Souza, F. Krueger, and J. Grafman, “The neural basis of human moral cognition,” Nature Reviews Neuroscience, vol. 6, no. 10, pp. 799–809, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  4. D. M. Amodio, B. D. Bartholow, and T. A. Ito, “Tracking the dynamics of the social brain: ERP approaches for social cognitive and affective neuroscience,” Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, vol. 9, no. 3, Article ID nst177, pp. 385–393, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  5. W. H. R. Miltner, C. H. Braun, and M. G. H. Coles, “Event-related brain potentials following incorrect feedback in a time-estimation task: evidence for a “generic” neural system for error detection,” Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 788–798, 1997. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  6. C. B. Holroyd and M. G. H. Coles, “The neural basis of human error processing: reinforcement learning, dopamine, and the error-related negativity,” Psychological Review, vol. 109, no. 4, pp. 679–709, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  7. D. Foti, A. Weinberg, J. Dien, and G. Hajcak, “Event-related potential activity in the basal ganglia differentiates rewards from nonrewards: temporospatial principal components analysis and source localization of the feedback negativity,” Human Brain Mapping, vol. 32, no. 12, pp. 2207–2216, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  8. C. B. Holroyd, K. L. Pakzad-Vaezi, and O. E. Krigolson, “The feedback correct-related positivity: sensitivity of the event-related brain potential to unexpected positive feedback,” Psychophysiology, vol. 45, no. 5, pp. 688–697, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. W. J. Gehring and A. R. Willoughby, “The medial frontal cortex and the rapid processing of monetary gains and losses,” Science, vol. 295, no. 5563, pp. 2279–2282, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  10. G. Hajcak, J. S. Moser, C. B. Holroyd, and R. F. Simons, “It's worse than you thought: the feedback negativity and violations of reward prediction in gambling tasks,” Psychophysiology, vol. 44, no. 6, pp. 905–912, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  11. G. Hajcak, J. S. Moser, C. B. Holroyd, and R. F. Simons, “The feedback-related negativity reflects the binary evaluation of good versus bad outcomes,” Biological Psychology, vol. 71, no. 2, pp. 148–154, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  12. C. B. Holroyd, G. Hajcak, and J. T. Larsen, “The good, the bad and the neutral: electrophysiological responses to feedback stimuli,” Brain Research, vol. 1105, no. 1, pp. 93–111, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  13. C. B. Holroyd, J. T. Larsen, and J. D. Cohen, “Context dependence of the event-related brain potential associated with reward and punishment,” Psychophysiology, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 245–253, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  14. Y. Huang and R. Yu, “The feedback-related negativity reflects ‘more or less’ prediction error in appetitive and aversive conditions,” Frontiers in Neuroscience, vol. 8, article 108, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  15. F. T. P. Oliveira, J. J. McDonald, and D. Goodman, “Performance monitoring in the anterior cingulate is not all error related: expectancy deviation and the representation of action-outcome associations,” Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, vol. 19, no. 12, pp. 1994–2004, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. G. Hajcak, C. B. Holroyd, J. S. Moser, and R. F. Simons, “Brain potentials associated with expected and unexpected good and bad outcomes,” Psychophysiology, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 161–170, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  17. J. Stahl, “Error detection and the use of internal and external error indicators: an investigation of the first-indicator hypothesis,” International Journal of Psychophysiology, vol. 77, no. 1, pp. 43–52, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  18. R. C. Oldfield, “The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory,” Neuropsychologia, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 97–113, 1971. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  19. A. Leue, S. Lange, and A. Beauducel, “Modulation of the conflict monitoring intensity: the role of aversive reinforcement, cognitive demand, and trait-BIS,” Cognitive, Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 287–307, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  20. A. Leue, B. Weber, and A. Beauducel, “How do working-memory-related demand, reasoning ability and aversive reinforcement modulate conflict monitoring?” Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, vol. 210, pp. 1–13, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  21. T. W. Picton, S. Bentin, P. Berg et al., “Guidelines for using human event-related potentials to study cognition: recording standards and publication criteria,” Psychophysiology, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 127–152, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  22. G. E. Chatrian, E. Lettich, and P. L. Nelson, “Modified nomenclature for the ‘10%’ electrode system,” Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 183–186, 1988. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  23. T. E. Baker and C. B. Holroyd, “Dissociated roles of the anterior cingulate cortex in reward and conflict processing as revealed by the feedback error-related negativity and N200,” Biological Psychology, vol. 87, no. 1, pp. 25–34, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  24. J. Marco-Pallares, D. Cucurell, T. F. Münte, N. Strien, and A. Rodriguez-Fornells, “On the number of trials needed for a stable feedback-related negativity,” Psychophysiology, vol. 48, no. 6, pp. 852–860, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  25. D. L. Santesso, A. Dzyundzyak, and S. J. Segalowitz, “Age, sex and individual differences in punishment sensitivity: factors influencing the feedback-related negativity,” Psychophysiology, vol. 48, no. 11, pp. 1481–1489, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  26. T. D. Sambrook, M. Roser, and J. Goslin, “Prospect theory does not describe the feedback-related negativity value function,” Psychophysiology, vol. 49, no. 12, pp. 1533–1544, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  27. J. Greenberg, “Determinants of perceived fairness of performance evaluations,” Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 71, no. 2, pp. 340–342, 1986. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  28. R. Gaschler, S. Schwager, V. J. Umbach, P. A. Frensch, and T. Schubert, “Expectation mismatch: differences between self-generated and cue-induced expectations,” Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 139–157, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus