Comparing the motivational value of rewards and losses in an EEG-pupillometry study.

We found earlier that performance-contingent rewards lead to faster performance than equivalent losses [Carsten, Hoofs, Boehler, & Krebs, 2019. Motivation Science, 5(3). http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/mot0000117]. Here, we further tested the hypothesis that motivation to gain rewards is higher than to avoid losses, even when incentive values are matched. As implicit markers of motivation, we assessed electroencephalography (EEG) focusing on the P3 after target and feedback onset, and the Feedback-Related Negativity (FRN), as well as simultaneously recorded pupil size. Comparing only reward and loss prospect trials in Experiment 1, we found no consistent differences in behavior and electrophysiological markers of motivation, although pupil data suggested higher arousal after feedback in potential-loss trials. Including additional no-incentive trials in Experiment 2, we found consistent evidence that motivation to gain rewards was higher than to avoid losses: In line with behavior, the target-P3 was most pronounced for reward-related stimuli, followed by loss and no-incentive ones. This same ranking was found in the P3 and the FRN after positive outcomes (i.e., reward, avoided loss, and correct feedback in no-incentive trials). Negative outcomes featured a different pattern in line with the pupil response, which suggests that losses are emotionally salient events, without invigorating behavior proportionally. In sum, these findings suggest that the motivation to gain rewards is more pronounced than motivation to avoid equivalent losses, at least in tasks promoting transient increases in attention triggered by incentive prospect. These motivational differences may arise as avoided losses are not profitable in the long term, in contrast to gained rewards.

Are all behavioral reward benefits created equally? An EEG-fMRI study.

Reward consistently boosts performance in cognitive tasks. Although many different reward manipulations exist, systematic comparisons are lacking. Reward effects on cognitive control are usually studied using monetary incentive delay (MID; cue-related reward information) or stimulus-reward association (SRA; target-related reward information) tasks. While for MID tasks, evidence clearly implicates reward-triggered global increases in proactive control, it is unclear how reward effects arise in SRA tasks, and in how far such mechanisms overlap during task preparation and target processing. Here, we address these questions with simultaneous EEG-fMRI using a Stroop task with four different block types. In addition to MID and SRA blocks, we used an SRA-task modification with reward-irrelevant cues (C-SRA) and regular reward-neutral Stroop-task blocks. Behaviorally, we observed superior performance for all reward conditions compared to Neutral, and more pronounced reward effects in the SRA and C-SRA blocks, compared to MID blocks. The fMRI data showed similar reward effects in value-related areas for events that signaled reward availability (MID cues and (C-)SRA targets), and comparable reward modulations in cognitive-control regions for all targets regardless of block type. This result pattern was echoed by the EEG data, showing clear markers of valuation and cognitive control, which only differed during task preparation, whereas reward-related modulations during target processing were again comparable across block types. Yet, considering only cue-related fMRI data, C-SRA cues triggered preparatory control processes beyond reward-unrelated MID cues, without simultaneous modulations in typical reward areas, implicating enhanced task preparation that is not directly driven by a concurrent neural reward-anticipation response.

Differential effects of sustained and transient effort triggered by reward - A combined EEG and pupillometry study.

In instrumental task contexts, incentive manipulations such as posting reward on successful performance usually trigger increased effort, which is signified by effort markers like increased pupil size. Yet, it is not fully clear under which circumstances incentives really promote performance, and which role effort plays therein. In the present study, we compared two schemes of associating reward with a Flanker task, while simultaneously acquiring electroencephalography (EEG) and pupillometry data in order to explore the contribution of effort-related processes. In Experiment 1, reward was administered in a block-based fashion, with series of targets in pure reward and no-reward blocks. The results imply increased sustained effort in the reward blocks, as reflected in particular in sustained increased pupil size. Yet, this was not accompanied by a behavioral benefit, suggesting a failure of translating increased effort into a behavioral pay-off. In Experiment 2, we introduced trial-based cues in order to also promote transient preparatory effort application, which indeed led to a behavioral benefit. Again, we observed a sustained pupil-size increase, but also transient ones. Consistent with this, the EEG data of Experiment 2 indicated increased transient preparatory effort preceding target onset, as well as reward modulations of target processing that arose earlier than in Experiment 1. Jointly, our results indicate that incentive-triggered effort can operate on different time-scales, and that, at least for the current task, its transient (and largely preparatory) form is critical for achieving a behavioral benefit, which may relate to the temporal dynamics of the catecholaminergic systems.

Winning smiles: Signalling reward by overlapping and non-overlapping emotional valence differentially affects performance and neural activity.

It is well-known that both emotional and motivational events greatly impact our behaviour. Based on previous work on the interplay between these two constructs, the present study aimed to test whether and how concurrent emotion and reward signals interact in terms of their basic valence, when both are equally relevant to the task. To this end, we employed a novel fMRI paradigm in which reward availability was explicitly signalled by positive, neutral, or negative facial expressions (using block-wise instructions). Hence, in contrast to previous studies combining reward cues with irrelevant emotional stimuli, the present paradigm required participants to process the emotional information in order to respond and receive the reward. Compared to no-reward trials, we found performance benefits in trials in which reward was signalled by positive emotion, and performance detriments in trials in which reward was signalled by negative emotion - even though the reward value of the positive and negative emotion trials was identical. Neurally, reward trials signalled by negative emotion were associated with increased activity in frontal cognitive control regions, indicative of an induced conflict arising from a mismatch in absolute valence between reward and emotion. In contrast, reward trials signalled by positive emotion did not differentially increase activity anywhere in the brain (despite being associated with behavioural facilitation), which seems to support the notion of an inherent, and hence effortless, mapping between positive/rewarding stimuli and approach behaviour. Together, we interpret these patterns in terms of overlapping and non-overlapping valence signals (and associated response tendencies), which can induce benefits and costs, respectively.

Smiling faces and cash bonuses: Exploring common affective coding across positive and negative emotional and motivational stimuli using fMRI.

Although it is clear that emotional and motivational manipulations yield a strong influence on cognition and behaviour, these domains have mostly been investigated in independent research lines. Therefore, it remains poorly understood how far these affective manipulations overlap in terms of their underlying neural activations, especially in light of previous findings that suggest a shared valence mechanism across multiple affective processing domains (e.g., monetary incentives, primary rewards, emotional events). This is particularly interesting considering the commonality between emotional and motivational constructs in terms of their basic affective nature (positive vs. negative), but dissociations in terms of instrumentality, in that only reward-related stimuli are typically associated with performance-contingent outcomes. Here, we aimed to examine potential common neural processes triggered by emotional and motivational stimuli in matched tasks within participants using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Across tasks, we found shared valence effects in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex and left inferior frontal gyrus (part of dorsolateral prefrontal cortex), with increased activity for positive and negative stimuli, respectively. Despite this commonality, emotion and reward tasks featured differential behavioural patterns in that negative valence effects (performance costs) were exclusive to emotional stimuli, while positive valence effects (performance benefits) were only observed for reward-related stimuli. Overall, our data suggest a common affective coding mechanism across different task domains and support the idea that monetary incentives entail signed basic valence signals, above and beyond the instruction to perform both gain and loss trials as accurately as possible to maximise the outcome.