The rewarding value of good motor performance in the context of monetary incentives.

Whether an agent receives positive task feedback or a monetary reward, neural activity in their striatum increases. In the latter case striatal activity reflects extrinsic reward processing, while in the former, striatal activity reflects the intrinsically rewarding effects of performing well. There can be a "hidden cost of reward", which is a detrimental effect of extrinsic on intrinsic reward value. This raises the question how these two types of reward interact. To address this, we applied a monetary incentive delay task: in all trials participants received feedback depending on their performance. In half of the trials they could additionally receive monetary reward if they performed well. This resulted in high performance trials, which were monetarily rewarded and high performance trials that were not. This made it possible to dissociate the neural correlates of performance feedback from the neural correlates of monetary reward that comes with high performance. Performance feedback alone elicits activation increases in the ventral striatum. This activation increases due to additional monetary reward. Neural response in the dorsal striatum on the other hand is only significantly increased by feedback when a monetary incentive is present. The quality of performance does not significantly influence dorsal striatum activity. In conclusion, our results indicate that the dorsal striatum is primarily sensitive to optional or actually received external rewards, whereas the ventral striatum may be coding intrinsic reward due to positive performance feedback. Thus the ventral striatum is suggested to be involved in the processing of intrinsically motivated behavior.

Safety and immunogenicity of a modified process hepatitis B vaccine in healthy neonates.

BACKGROUND: A manufacturing process using a modified adjuvant was developed to optimize the consistency and immunogenicity for recombinant hepatitis B vaccine (control: RECOMBIVAX-HB™). This modified process hepatitis B vaccine (mpHBV), which was previously shown to have an acceptable safety and immunogenicity profile in young adults, has now been studied in newborn infants. METHODS: Healthy 1-10-day-old neonates (N=566) received 3 intramuscular doses (5µg hepatitis B surface antigen [HBsAg] per dose) of either mpHBV or control at Day 1, and Months 1 and 6. Serum antibody to HBsAg (anti-HBs) was assayed at Month 7 (1 month Postdose 3). Anti-HBs geometric mean titers (GMTs) and seroprotection rates (SPRs) (% of subjects with an anti-HBs titer ≥10mIU/mL) were compared at Month 7. After each dose, injection-site adverse experiences (AEs) and axillary temperatures were recorded for 5 days; systemic AEs were recorded for Days 1-14. RESULTS: Month 7 SPR was 97.9% for the mpHBV group and 98.9% for the control. The GMT was 843.7mIU/mL for the mpHBV group and 670.1mIU/mL for the control. The GMT ratio (mpHBV/control) was 1.26 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.94, 1.69), meeting the prespecified non-inferiority criteria. The percentages of subjects reporting any AE, injection-site AEs, or systemic AEs were similar across the 2 vaccination groups. There were no serious AEs. CONCLUSIONS: The safety profile of mpHBV was comparable to that of the control vaccine. The geometric mean antibody titer for mpHBV was higher than control vaccine in this infant population, but the difference did not meet the predefined statistical criterion for superiority.

Motor and non-motor error and the influence of error magnitude on brain activity.

It has been shown that frontal cortical areas increase their activity during error perception and error processing. However, it is not yet clear whether perception of motor errors is processed in the same frontal areas as perception of errors in cognitive tasks. It is also unclear whether brain activity level is influenced by the magnitude of error. For this purpose, we conducted a study in which subjects were confronted with motor and non-motor errors, and had them perform a sensorimotor transformation task in which they were likely to commit motor errors of different magnitudes (internal errors). In addition to the internally committed motor errors, non-motor errors (external errors) were added to the feedback in some trials. We found that activity in the anterior insula, inferior frontal gyrus (IFG), cerebellum, precuneus, and posterior medial frontal cortex (pMFC) correlated positively with the magnitude of external errors. The middle frontal gyrus (MFG) and the pMFC cortex correlated positively with the magnitude of the total error fed back to subjects (internal plus external). No significant positive correlation between internal error and brain activity could be detected. These results indicate that motor errors have a differential effect on brain activity compared with non-motor errors.