↓ Skip to main content

Effects of affective arousal on choice behavior, reward prediction errors, and feedback-related negativities in human reward-based decision making

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Effects of affective arousal on choice behavior, reward prediction errors, and feedback-related negativities in human reward-based decision making
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, May 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00592
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hong-Hsiang Liu, Ming H. Hsieh, Yung-Fong Hsu, Wen-Sung Lai

Abstract

Emotional experience has a pervasive impact on choice behavior, yet the underlying mechanism remains unclear. Introducing facial-expression primes into a probabilistic learning task, we investigated how affective arousal regulates reward-related choice based on behavioral, model fitting, and feedback-related negativity (FRN) data. Sixty-six paid subjects were randomly assigned to the Neutral-Neutral (NN), Angry-Neutral (AN), and Happy-Neutral (HN) groups. A total of 960 trials were conducted. Subjects in each group were randomly exposed to half trials of the pre-determined emotional faces and another half of the neutral faces before choosing between two cards drawn from two decks with different assigned reward probabilities. Trial-by-trial data were fit with a standard reinforcement learning model using the Bayesian estimation approach. The temporal dynamics of brain activity were simultaneously recorded and analyzed using event-related potentials. Our analyses revealed that subjects in the NN group gained more reward values than those in the other two groups; they also exhibited comparatively differential estimated model-parameter values for reward prediction errors. Computing the difference wave of FRNs in reward vs. non-reward trials, we found that, compared to the NN group, subjects in the AN and HN groups had larger "General" FRNs (i.e., FRNs in no-reward trials minus FRNs in reward trials) and "Expected" FRNs (i.e., FRNs in expected reward-omission trials minus FRNs in expected reward-delivery trials), indicating an interruption in predicting reward. Further, both AN and HN groups appeared to be more sensitive to negative outcomes than the NN group. Collectively, our study suggests that affective arousal negatively regulates reward-related choice, probably through overweighting with negative feedback.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Denmark 1 2%
Unknown 54 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 18%
Researcher 8 15%
Student > Bachelor 5 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 9%
Student > Postgraduate 4 7%
Other 9 16%
Unknown 14 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 35 64%
Neuroscience 2 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 15 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 June 2015.
All research outputs
#17,754,724
of 22,800,560 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#20,411
of 29,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#179,372
of 265,518 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#395
of 510 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,800,560 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,712 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 265,518 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 510 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.