Article

Stimulus-preceding negativity is modulated by action-outcome contingency.

Faculty of Sport Sciences, Waseda University, 2-579-15, Mikajima, Tokorozawa, Saitama 359, Japan.
Neuroreport (Impact Factor: 1.64). 03/2010; 21(4):277-81. DOI: 10.1097/WNR.0b013e3283360bc3
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT We investigated the relationship between action-outcome contingency and stimulus-preceding negativity (SPN), a motivationally sensitive event-related potential. Neuroimaging studies have shown that insular cortex (a known source of the SPN) is more activated prior to rewards that are contingent on prior correct action than rewards that are given gratuitously. We compared two gambling tasks, one in which the participant attempted to guess the profitable key-press option (choice) and one in which rewards were simply given at random (no-choice). The SPN that developed in anticipation of feedback was larger in the choice condition, especially at right anterolateral sites. These findings suggest that the SPN specifically reflects the expectation of response reinforcement, rather than anticipatory attention toward emotionally salient stimuli.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Hiroaki Masaki, Jun 18, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
174 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The Stimulus Preceding Negativity (SPN) is a non-motor slow cortical potential elicited by temporally predictable stimuli, customarily interpreted as a physiological index of expectancy. Its origin would be the brain activity responsible for generating the anticipatory mental representation of an expected upcoming event. The SPN manifests itself as a slow cortical potential with negative slope, growing in amplitude as the stimulus approximates. The uncertainty hypothesis we present here postulates that the SPN is linked to control-related areas in the prefrontal cortex that become more active before the occurrence of an upcoming outcome perceived as uncertain. We tested the uncertainty hypothesis by using a repeated measures design in a Human Contingency Learning task with two levels of uncertainty. In the high uncertainty condition, the outcome is unpredictable. In the mid uncertainty condition, the outcome can be learnt to be predicted in 75% of the trials. Our experiment shows that the Stimulus Preceding Negativity is larger for probabilistically unpredictable (uncertain) outcomes than for probabilistically predictable ones. sLoreta estimations of the brain activity preceding the outcome suggest that prefrontal and parietal areas can be involved in its generation. Prefrontal sites activation (Anterior Cingulate and Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex) seems to be related to the degree of uncertainty. Activation in posterior parietal areas, however, does not correlates with uncertainty. We suggest that the Stimulus Preceding Negativity reflects the attempt to predict the outcome, when posterior brain areas fail to generate a stable expectancy. Uncertainty is thus conceptualized, not just as the absence of learned expectancy, but as a state with psychological and physiological entity.
    PLoS ONE 07/2012; 7(7):e40252. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0040252
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The shift from childhood to adolescence is characterized by rapid remodeling of the brain and increased risk-taking behaviors. Current theories hypothesize that developmental enhancements in sensitivity to affective environmental cues in adolescence may undermine executive function (EF) and increase the likelihood of problematic behaviors. In the current study, we examined the extent to which EF in childhood predicts EF in early adolescence. We also tested whether individual differences in neural responses to affective cues (rewards/punishments) in childhood serve as a biological marker for EF, sensation-seeking, academic performance, and social skills in early adolescence. At age 8, 84 children completed a gambling task while event-related potentials (ERPs) were recorded. We examined the extent to which selections resulting in rewards or losses in this task elicited (i) the P300, a post-stimulus waveform reflecting the allocation of attentional resources toward a stimulus, and (ii) the SPN, a pre-stimulus anticipatory waveform reflecting a neural representation of a "hunch" about an outcome that originates in insula and ventromedial PFC. Children also completed a Dimensional Change Card-Sort (DCCS) and Flanker task to measure EF. At age 12, 78 children repeated the DCCS and Flanker and completed a battery of questionnaires. Flanker and DCCS accuracy at age 8 predicted Flanker and DCCS performance at age 12, respectively. Individual differences in the magnitude of P300 (to losses vs. rewards) and SPN (preceding outcomes with a high probability of punishment) at age 8 predicted self-reported sensation seeking (lower) and teacher-rated academic performance (higher) at age 12. We suggest there is stability in EF from age 8 to 12, and that childhood neural sensitivity to reward and punishment predicts individual differences in sensation seeking and adaptive behaviors in children entering adolescence.
    Frontiers in Psychology 04/2014; 5:331. DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00331
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Neurobiological accounts of the dopaminergic reward system and psychophysiological explanations of the error-related negativity (ERN) both emphasize the comparison of expected versus actual outcome for voluntary actions. The stimulus-preceding negativity (SPN) constitutes a valuable index of that expectation, in that it has high temporal resolution and its anatomical, cognitive and affective correlates have been reasonably well characterized. This review links established findings regarding the SPN to current research on the dorsal and ventral attention systems, somatic marker hypothesis, ERN, the reward system and relevant neurological and psychiatric findings. Special emphasis is given to the pre-feedback SPN and its origin within anterior insular cortex.
    Clinical neurophysiology: official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology 05/2011; 122(5):858-68. DOI:10.1016/j.clinph.2010.12.039