Higher incentives can impair performance: neural evidence on reinforcement and rationality.

Standard economic thinking postulates that increased monetary incentives should increase performance. Human decision makers, however, frequently focus on past performance, a form of reinforcement learning occasionally at odds with rational decision making. We used an incentivized belief-updating task from economics to investigate this conflict through measurements of neural correlates of reward processing. We found that higher incentives fail to improve performance when immediate feedback on decision outcomes is provided. Subsequent analysis of the feedback-related negativity, an early event-related potential following feedback, revealed the mechanism behind this paradoxical effect. As incentives increase, the win/lose feedback becomes more prominent, leading to an increased reliance on reinforcement and more errors. This mechanism is relevant for economic decision making and the debate on performance-based payment.

Achtziger A ，Alós-Ferrer C ，Hügelschäfer S ，Steinhauser M ... -  《-》

EEG correlates of physical effort and reward processing during reinforcement learning.

Palidis DJ ，Gribble PL 《-》

An electrophysiological monetary incentive delay (e-MID) task: a way to decompose the different components of neural response to positive and negative monetary reinforcement.

The ability to anticipate and then secure future rewards and avoid future punishments by responding effectively to environmental demands is at the core of successful decision making. Disruptions to these processes have been shown to be implicated in a number of psychiatric conditions. In the current paper we use the electrophysiological monetary incentive delay task (e-MID) to decompose the neural response to (i) reinforcement anticipation, (ii) reinforcement-contingent target processing and (iii) reinforcement-related feedback. Thirty-eight adolescents and young adults performed an ERP-based analogue of the monetary incentive delay task. ERP components previously associated with motivationally salient cue (cue-P3 and contingent negative variation, CNV), target (P3) and feedback (success vs. failure; feedback-related negativity; FRN and the late positive potential; LPP) stimuli were examined. Response times were shorter and less variable in the monetary gain and loss conditions. Distinctive ERP components were observed for each phase of reinforcement processing. First, cue-P3 was enhanced to monetary gain cues. Predicted alterations in cue-P3 following monetary loss cues and the CNV following cues of either monetary loss or gain were not observed. Target P3 was enhanced in both incentive conditions. The FRN was greater following monetary loss feedback. LPP amplitude was enhanced following feedback denoting monetary gain and the avoidance of monetary loss. Although behaviourally the effects of monetary loss and gain were similar, the e-MID task differentiated neural processing in terms of anticipation and feedback-related brain potentials. The e-MID task and the results of the current study provide a valuable complement to fMRI-based approaches to studying normal and abnormal brain correlates of reinforcement processing.

Broyd SJ ，Richards HJ ，Helps SK ，Chronaki G ，Bamford S ，Sonuga-Barke EJ ... -  《-》

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.

Lutz K ，Pedroni A ，Nadig K ，Luechinger R ，Jäncke L ... -  《-》

Feedback information and the reward positivity.

The reward positivity is a component of the event-related brain potential (ERP) sensitive to neural mechanisms of reward processing. Multiple studies have demonstrated that reward positivity amplitude indices a reward prediction error signal that is fundamental to theories of reinforcement learning. However, whether this ERP component is also sensitive to richer forms of performance information important for supervised learning is less clear. To investigate this question, we recorded the electroencephalogram from participants engaged in a time estimation task in which the type of error information conveyed by feedback stimuli was systematically varied across conditions. Consistent with our predictions, we found that reward positivity amplitude decreased in relation to increasing information content of the feedback, and that reward positivity amplitude was unrelated to trial-to-trial behavioral adjustments in task performance. By contrast, a series of exploratory analyses revealed frontal-central and posterior ERP components immediately following the reward positivity that related to these processes. Taken in the context of the wider literature, these results suggest that the reward positivity is produced by a neural mechanism that motivates task performance, whereas the later ERP components apply the feedback information according to principles of supervised learning.

Cockburn J ，Holroyd CB 《-》