The importance of agency in human reward processing
Converging evidence suggests that reinforcement learning (RL) signals exist within the human brain and that they play a role in the modification of behaviour. According to RL theory, prediction errors are used to update values associated with actions and/or predictive cues, thus facilitate decision-making. For example, the reward positivity—a feedback-sensitive component of the event-related brain potential (ERP)—is thought to index an RL prediction error. An unresolved question, however, is whether or not action is required to elicit a reward positivity. Reinforcement learning theory would predict that the reward positivity should diminish or disappear in the absence of action, but evidence for this claim is conflicting. To investigate the impact of cue, choice, and action on the amplitude of the reward positivity, we altered a two-armed bandit task by systematically removing these factors. The reward positivity was greatly reduced or absent in the altered versions of the task. This result highlights the key role of agency in producing learning signals, such as the reward positivity.
KeywordsAgency Reward positivity Reinforcement learning
This research was supported by the University of Victoria Neuroeducation Network (first author) and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (third author).
- Begleiter, H., Porjesz, B., Chou, C. L., & Aunon, J. I. (1983). P3 and Stimulus Incentive Value. Psychophysiology, 20(1), 95–101. Google Scholar
- Jung, T.-P., Makeig, S., Humphries, C., Lee, T.-W., McKeown, M. J., Iragui, V., & Sejnowski, T. J. (2000). Removing electroencephalographic artifacts by blind source separation. Psychophysiology, 37(2), 163–178.Google Scholar
- Kleih, S. C., Nijboer, F., Halder, S., & Kübler, A. (2010). Motivation modulates the P300 amplitude during brain–computer interface use. Clinical Neurophysiology, 121(7), 1023–1031.Google Scholar
- Krigolson, O. E. (2017). Event-related brain potentials and the study of reward processing: Methodological considerations. International Journal of Psychophysiology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2017.11.007
- Lakens, D. (2013). Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: a practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Frontiers in Psychology, 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863
- Miltner, W. H., Braun, C. H., & Coles, M. G. (1997). Event-related brain potentials following incorrect feedback in a time-estimation task: Evidence for a “generic” neural system for error detection. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 9(6), 788–798.Google Scholar
- Mulligan, E. M., Flynn, H., & Hajcak, G. (2018). Neural response to reward and psychosocial risk factors independently predict antenatal depressive symptoms. Biological Psychology. In press, corrected proof.Google Scholar
- O’Doherty, J. P., Cockburn, J., & Pauli, W. M. (2017). Learning, Reward, and Decision Making. Annual Review of Psychology, 68(1), 73–100. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-044216 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Oberg, S. A. K., Christie, G. J., & Tata, M. S. (2011). Problem gamblers exhibit reward hypersensitivity in medial frontal cortex during gambling. Neuropsychologia, 49(13), 3768–3775. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2011.09.037 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Proudfit, G. H. (2015). The reward positivity: From basic research on reward to a biomarker for depression. Psychophysiology, 52(4), 449–459.Google Scholar
- Rescorla, R. A., & Wagner, A. R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. Classical Conditioning II: Current Research and Theory, 2, 64–99.Google Scholar
- Sutton, R. S., & Barto, A. G. (1998). Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction. MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar