Uncertainty deconstructed: conceptual analysis and state-of-the-art review of the ERP correlates of risk and ambiguity in decision-making.

Risk and uncertainty are central concepts of decision neuroscience. However, a comprehensive review of the literature shows that most studies define risk and uncertainty in an unclear fashion or use both terms interchangeably, which hinders the integration of the existing findings. We suggest uncertainty as an umbrella term that comprises scenarios characterized by outcome variance where relevant information about the type and likelihood of outcomes may be somewhat unavailable (ambiguity) and scenarios where the likelihood of outcomes is known (risk).These conceptual issues are problematic for studies on the temporal neurodynamics of decision-making under risk and ambiguity, because they lead to heterogeneity in task design and the interpretation of the results. To assess this problem, we conducted a state-of-the-art review of ERP studies on risk and ambiguity in decision-making. By employing the above definitions to 16 reviewed studies, our results suggest that: (a) research has focused more on risk than ambiguity processing; (b) studies assessing decision-making under risk often implemented descriptive-based paradigms, whereas studies assessing ambiguity processing equally implemented descriptive- and experience-based tasks; (c) descriptive-based studies link risk processing to increased frontal negativities (e.g., N2, N400) and both risk and ambiguity to reduced parietal positivities (e.g., P2, P3); (d) experience-based studies link risk to increased P3 amplitudes and ambiguity to increased frontal negativities and the LPC component; (e) both risk and ambiguity processing seem to be related with cognitive control, conflict monitoring, and increased cognitive demand; (f) further research and improved tasks are needed to dissociate risk and ambiguity processing.

Neuronal underpinnings of the attentional bias toward threat in the anxiety spectrum: Meta-analytical data on P3 and LPP event-related potentials.

BACKGROUND: This systematic review analyzes brain responses at later stages of neuronal processing (P3 at 300-500 ms, and LPP at 300-700 ms). Both P3 and LPP are implicated in attentional threat bias in disorders grouped into fear and distress dimensions of the anxiety spectrum described by the Hierarchical Taxonomy Model of Psychopathology (HiTOP), but there are no consistent findings so far. METHOD: Meta-analyses with between- (32 studies, n = 1631) and within-groups design (31 studies, n = 1699) were performed for assessing P3 and LPP modulation in negative, positive, and neutral stimuli, while also considering differences between controls and anxious individuals. Relevant moderators (e.g., age, sex, task) were controlled for and negative stimuli were further decomposed in terms of category (Relevant, Fear/Threat, or Unpleasant). RESULTS: Increased P3 and LPP amplitudes were found for negative and positive stimuli, when compared to neutral stimuli (within-subjects analysis), confirming that both components are elicited by emotionally arousing information. Within-effects for negative and positive stimuli were higher for the anxious groups. Nonetheless, between-groups analyses showed that attentional threat bias occurs only in anxious groups when negative, personally relevant-threat information is presented. The HiTOP fear dimension moderated the findings. LIMITATIONS: Potential missed studies; ERPs time windows' heterogeneity; adult sample only; the uneven number of computed effects; categorical analyses. CONCLUSION: Attentional bias toward disorder-congruent threatening cues can be a transdiagnostic mechanism of HiTOP fear disorders, clustered within the anxiety spectrum.