↓ Skip to main content

Electrophysiological Correlates of Cue-Related Processing in a Gambling Task: Early Outcome Evaluation or Outcome Expectation?

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
20 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
Electrophysiological Correlates of Cue-Related Processing in a Gambling Task: Early Outcome Evaluation or Outcome Expectation?
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, June 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00978
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xiaoyi Zhang, Xiaohong Lin, Shiho Takagi, Liyang Sai

Abstract

Several recent studies have suggested that cues that predict outcomes elicit a feedback-related-like negativity (FRN-like negativity) reflecting initial appraisals of whether desired outcomes are probable. Some other studies, however, have found that the cues that predict outcomes elicited event-related potentials (ERPs) that reflect the expectation to outcomes (e.g., outcome expectations). Given these mixed findings, this study aimed to examine whether the brain activity elicited by predictive cues in a gambling task reflected the initial evaluations of the outcomes, the outcome expectations, or both. We used a gambling task in which the participants were told to guess which of two doors hid a reward. At the beginning of each trial, a cue was presented to inform the participants of how many doors hid a reward. We found that these predictive cues elicited a FRN-like negativity at the frontal sites within around 200-300 ms. However, this negativity did not significantly differ between the cues that fully predicted gains and the cues that fully predicted losses. Furthermore, predictive cues elicited an expectation-related slow wave, and cues that predicted gains with a 50% probability elicited a larger expectation-related slow wave than cues that fully predicted gains or losses. Our results suggest that cues predicting outcomes reflect outcome expectations rather than initial evaluations of the forthcoming outcomes.

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 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 20 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 20%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 15%
Student > Bachelor 2 10%
Student > Master 1 5%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 9 45%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 15%
Psychology 2 10%
Chemistry 2 10%
Neuroscience 2 10%
Social Sciences 1 5%
Other 2 10%
Unknown 8 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 13 June 2017.
All research outputs
#14,811,692
of 22,977,819 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#16,029
of 30,147 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#186,664
of 317,520 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#415
of 617 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,977,819 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,147 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 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 317,520 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 617 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.