![]() Indeed, this question of hedonic appraisal underlying the RewP has been rigorously tested in an ongoing research program (Table S1). In the current report, we continue a line of work investigating whether this signal is sensitive to hedonic appraisal (e.g., “liking”). Indeed, recent investigations of hedonic types of reward have further added to the growing understanding of clinical phenomena, such as autism spectrum disorder (Sabatino et al., 2011), depression (Kumar et al., 2008), and alcohol use disorder (Schacht et al., 2014). An enhanced understanding of the motivational aspects of emotion and how it relates to reward learning can offer more sophisticated insights into aberrant processes in clinical populations. Previous literature has highlighted important multidimensional aspects of reward (Berridge, 1996 Berridge et al., 2009 Robinson & Berridge, 2008), including incentive motivation (“wanting”) and hedonic impact (“liking”). Yet this overreliance on a one-dimensional feedback limits the understanding of the boundary conditions of the RewP and ignores motivational influences, which may modulate this signal independent of expectation violation. It is known that the RewP is enhanced to larger magnitude gains (Proudfit, 2015) and to more surprising outcomes (Holroyd et al., 2008), demonstrating that it specifically and sensitively reflects the degree of positive reward prediction error (Cavanagh, 2015). Numerous studies have shown that the RewP is sensitive to the acquisition of simple forms of reward, such as points (Bellebaum et al., 2010 Wu & Zhou, 2009 Yeung & Sanfey, 2004), or abstract icons, such as fruit or colored arrows (Angus et al., 2015 Holroyd et al., 2008 Proudfit, 2015). The Reward Positivity (RewP) is a positive going voltage deflection appearing ~200 ms over frontal central sites following reward receipt. These findings suggest that the RewP reflects cortical computations of reward surprise as well as hedonic liking, identifying it as a possible nexus where multidimensional value is computed. We again found a significant relationship between liking and RewP amplitude, however, only in the hard condition. ambivalent) to examine the potential interaction of prediction error and liking on RewP amplitude. hard) and affective picture content (liked vs. In a second experiment ( N = 25), we manipulated reinforcement rates (easy vs. Although there were no differences in the amplitudes of the RewP for different types of rewards, there was a significant correlation between the individual rating of liking for the images and RewP amplitude. In the first experiment ( N = 25), we manipulated the type of rewards a person could win (simple points or hedonically-appraised pictures). We conducted a series of experiments aimed to investigate underlying affect processing reflected in the RewP during a reinforcement learning task. Yet, the RewP also is modulated by state and trait affect, suggesting that it has a more complex computational role than simple reinforcement surprise. 453 (.933 slugging), including seven homers and 38 RBIs.įrom Sandia, junior righty Zach Kmatz (11-2, 1.58 ERA, a no-hitter, plus a state quarterfinal shutout of La Cueva as highlights), who recently verbally committed to Oregon State, joins Lee as the other first-team pitcher.The EEG feature known as the Reward Positivity (RewP) is elicited by reward receipt and appears to reflect sensitively and specifically positive prediction errors during reinforcement learning. Pius with offensive productivity time and again, batting. Malachi Peña, one of our first-team outfielders, hit behind Trujillo in St. You didn’t want to miss at-bats by Trujillo, a lefty who has signed to play for the Lobos. And remember, he got off to a slow start. ![]() 597 with 12 home runs and 48 RBIs, and a slugging percentage of 1.254. Pius and 5A semifinalist Sandia each have a pair of players on the first team.įor the Sartans, fearsome first baseman/designated hitter Gene Trujillo batted. 510 with 53 hits, 49 runs and stole 10 bases.Ĭlass 4A state champion St. He was an outstanding defensive outfielder, and he also hit. Savage was sometimes the Rams’ best player. 419 with six home runs, and only struck out seven times. Boyer was steady and sure behind the plate, and also at the plate. 977 slugging percentage, plus seven home runs and 41 RBIs. Smith, a University of New Mexico signee and the only repeat first-team selection from last year, batted. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |