No consistent startle modulation by reward
Abstract Previous studies have not clearly demonstrated whether motivational tendencies during reward feedback are mainly characterized by appetitive responses to a gain or mainly by aversive consequences of reward omission. In the current study this issue was addressed employing a passive head or t...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | article |
| Lenguaje: | EN |
| Publicado: |
Nature Portfolio
2021
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/5062e88cbb0644cfa97f2e902f28d1d3 |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: | Abstract Previous studies have not clearly demonstrated whether motivational tendencies during reward feedback are mainly characterized by appetitive responses to a gain or mainly by aversive consequences of reward omission. In the current study this issue was addressed employing a passive head or tails game and using the startle reflex as an index of the appetitive-aversive continuum. A second aim of the current study was to use startle-reflex modulation as a means to compare the subjective value of monetary rewards of varying magnitude. Startle responses after receiving feedback that a potential reward was won or not won were compared with a baseline condition without a potential gain. Furthermore, startle responses during anticipation of no versus potential gain were compared. Consistent with previous studies, startle-reflex magnitudes were significantly potentiated when participants anticipated a reward compared to no reward, which may reflect anticipatory arousal. Specifically for the largest reward (20-cents) startle magnitudes were potentiated when a reward was at stake but not won, compared to a neutral baseline without potential gain. In contrast, startle was not inhibited relative to baseline when a reward was won. This suggests that startle modulation during feedback is better characterized in terms of potentiation when missing out on reward rather than in terms of inhibition as a result of winning. However, neither of these effects were replicated in a more targeted second experiment. The discrepancy between these experiments may be due to differences in motivation to obtain rewards or differences in task engagement. From these experiments it may be concluded that the nature of the processing of reward feedback and reward cues is very sensitive to experimental parameters and settings. These studies show how apparently modest changes in these parameters and settings may lead to quite different modulations of appetitive/aversive motivation. A future experiment may shed more light on the question whether startle-reflex modulation after feedback is indeed mainly characterized by the aversive consequences of reward omission for relatively large rewards. |
|---|