Reward positivity biases interval production in a continuous timing task
Yan, Y.; Hunt, L. T.; Hassall, C. D.
Show abstract
The neural circuits of reward processing and interval timing (including perception and production) are functionally intertwined, suggesting that it might be possible for momentary reward processing to influence subsequent timing behavior. Previous animal and human studies have mainly focused on the effect of reward on interval perception, whereas its impact on interval production is less clear. In this study, we examined whether feedback, as an example of performance-contingent reward, biases interval production. We recorded EEG from 20 participants while they engaged in a continuous drumming task with different realistic tempos (1728 trials per participant). Participants received color-coded feedback after each beat about whether they were correct (on time) or incorrect (early or late). Regression-based EEG analysis was used to unmix the rapid occurrence of a feedback response called the reward positivity (RewP), which is traditionally observed in more slow-paced tasks. Using linear mixed modelling, we found that RewP amplitude predicted timing behavior for the upcoming beat. This performance-biasing effect of the RewP was interpreted as reflecting the impact of fluctuations in dopaminergic activities on timing, and the necessity of continuous paradigms to make such observations was highlighted.
Matching journals
The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- The Readiness Potential reflects the internal source of action, rather than decision uncertainty 97%
- Spatio-Temporal Dynamics of Oscillatory Brain Activity during the Observation of Actions and Interactions between Point-light Agents 95%
- Theta rhythmic attentional enhancement of alpha rhythmic perceptual sampling 95%
Similar papers in this journal
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.