Search

Losses usually have greater subjective value (SV) than gains of equal nominal value but often cause a relative deterioration in effortful performance. Since losses and gains induce differing approach/avoidance behavioral tendencies, we explored whether incentive type interacted with approach/avoidance motor‐sets. Alpha‐ and beta‐band event‐related desynchronization (ERD) was hypothesized to be weakest when participants expected a loss and prepared an inhibitory motor‐set, and strongest when participants expected a gain and prepared an active motor‐set. It was also hypothesized that effort would modulate reward and motor‐set–related cortical activation patterns. Participants completed a cued Go/NoGo task while expecting a reward (+10p), avoiding a loss (−10p), or receiving no incentive (0p); and while expecting a NoGo cue with a probability of either.75 or.25. Pre‐movement alpha‐ and beta‐band EEG power was analyzed using the ERD method, and the SV of effort was evaluated using a cognitive effort discounting task. Gains incentivized faster RTs and stronger preparatory alpha band ERD compared to loss and no incentive conditions, while inhibitory motor‐sets resulted in significantly weaker alpha‐band ERD. However, there was no interaction between incentive and motor‐sets. Participants were more willing to expend effort in losses compared to gain trials, although the SV of effort was not associated with ERD patterns or RTs. Results suggest that incentive and approach/avoidance motor tendencies modulate cortical activations prior to a speeded RT movement independently, and are not associated with the economic value of effort. The present results favor attentional explanations of the effect of incentive modality on effort. This study investigates the effect of gains and losses on cognitive effort using pre‐movement event‐related desynchronization to measure attention and approach/avoidance motor tendencies. The results showed, for the first time, that approach/avoidance motor tendencies act independently of incentive modality, and that monetary gains contributed to improved effortful performance through increased attentional engagement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is crucial for humans to coordinate between behavioural tendencies that can lead to reward but are in conflict with each other. This response conflict can be measured in a reward-modulated Simon task, in which a discriminative response to the identity of a lateral target is required and the target is associated with either high- or low-reward. Critically, the lateral target is presented either congruent or incongruent with the location of the responding hand. It has been shown that relative to the low-reward target, the high-reward target induced a larger response conflict when the target was incongruent with the position of the task-required, reward-obtaining hand. Here we investigated how this response conflict is resolved by acquiring 24 healthy participants' electromyography (EMG) signals from both the task-required responding hand (i.e., goal-directed effector) and the alternative hand (i.e., inappropriate effector). During the coping with the response conflict, motor inhibition (indexed by reduction in EMG signals between conditions) was observed not only at the inappropriate effector but also at the goal-directed effector. Individuals who showed stronger inhibition on the inappropriate effector suffered less from the inhibition on the goal-directed effector, and had more efficient implementation of the reward-obtaining response. Our findings suggest a global motor inhibition that may function to increase the signal-noise ratio in the motor system so as to implement reward-guided behavior., (© 2021 Society for Psychophysiological Research.)

Associating reward to task performance has been shown to benefit scores of cognitive functions. Importantly, this typically entails associating reward to the execution of a response, hence intertwining action-related processes with motivational ones. However, recently, preparatory action requirements (go/no-go) and outcome valence (reward/punishment) were elegantly separated using a cued orthogonalized go/no-go task. Functional magnetic resonance imaging results from this task showed that typical areas of the 'reward network,' like the dopaminergic midbrain and the striatum, predominantly encode action rather than valence, displaying enhanced activity when preparing for action (go) compared to inaction (no-go). In the current study, we used ERPs to probe for differences in preparatory state related to cognitive effort in this task, which has similarly been linked to reward-network activity. Importantly, the contingent negative variation, which is linked to effortful cognitive preparation processes during cue-target intervals, was clearly observed in go trials but not in no-go trials. Moreover, target-locked ERP results (N1 and P3) suggested that attention to the target was enhanced when an action had to be performed (go trials), and typical inhibition-related ERP components were not observed in no-go trials, suggesting a lack of active response inhibition. Finally, feedback-related P3 results could suggest that correct feedback was valued more in motivated go trials, again implying that more effort was required to correctly perform the task. Together, these results indicate that the anticipation of action compared to inaction simultaneously entails differences in mental effort, highlighting the need for further dissociation of these concepts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Preparing to stop may 'prime' the neural mechanism for stopping and alter brain activity at the time of stopping. Much electroencephalography ( EEG) research has studied the N2/P3 complex over frontocentral electrodes during outright stopping. Here, we used differential reward of the stop and go processes in a stop signal task to study the sensitivity of these EEG components to preparation. We found that (a) stopping was faster when it was rewarded; (b) the P3 amplitude was larger for successful versus failed stopping, and this difference was greater when stopping was rewarded over going; (c) the N2 component was observed only on failed stop trials; and (d) there was greater EEG coherence between frontocentral and occipitoparietal electrodes at 12 Hz during the initiation of a go response when stopping was rewarded over going. We propose that frontocentral cortical mechanisms active before and at the time of stopping are sensitive to preparation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Based on reward and difficulty information, people can strategically adjust proactive cognitive control. fMRI research shows that motivated proactive control is implemented through fronto-parietal control networks that are triggered by reward and difficulty cues. Here, we investigate electrophysiological signatures of proactive control. Previously, the contingent negative variation (CNV) in the ERPs and oscillatory power in the theta (4-8 Hz) and alpha band (8-14 Hz) have been suggested as signatures of control implementation. However, experimental designs did not always separate control implementation from motor preparation. Critically, we used a mental calculation task to investigate effects of proactive control implementation on the CNV and on theta and alpha power, in absence of motor preparation. In the period leading up to task onset, we found a more negative CNV, increased theta power, and decreased alpha power for hard versus easy calculations, showing increased proactive control implementation when a difficult task was expected. These three measures also correlated with behavioral performance, both across trials and across subjects. In addition to scalp EEG in healthy participants, we collected intracranial local field potential recordings in an epilepsy patient. We observed a slow-drift component that was more pronounced for hard trials in a hippocampal location, possibly reflecting task-specific preparation for hard mental calculations. The current study thus shows that difficulty information triggers proactive control in absence of motor preparation and elucidates its neurophysiological signatures., (© 2019 Society for Psychophysiological Research.)