2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Iris Schutte ◽  
Johanna M. P. Baas ◽  
Ivo Heitland ◽  
J. Leon Kenemans

AbstractPrevious 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.


2020 ◽  
Vol 82 (6) ◽  
pp. 2802-2813 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ming-Ray Liao ◽  
Laurent Grégoire ◽  
Brian A. Anderson

2019 ◽  
Vol 26 ◽  
pp. iii-v
Author(s):  
Joshua P Johansen ◽  
Ben Seymour
Keyword(s):  

1982 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 320-323 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael S. Fanselow ◽  
Robert C. Bolles
Keyword(s):  

2004 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-59 ◽  
Author(s):  
César Ávila ◽  
Rafael Torrubia

The relation between personality and type of error made in multiple‐choice examinations when correction for guessing is applied was investigated across two studies. Our general hypothesis was that disinhibited subjects (those scoring high on the Sensitivity to Reward (SR) scale and/or low on the Sensitivity to Punishment (SP) scale) would make more incorrect responses and fewer omission errors (blanks) than inhibited subjects (those with high SP and/or low SR scores). The meta‐analyses of 19 examinations in study 1 confirmed our hypotheses for SP, SR, and extraversion. Regression analyses on effect sizes revealed that SP differences were obtained in examinations with low marks, whereas SR differences were obtained in examinations with more responses and fewer questions. Study 2 showed that a low‐mark expectation increased omissions in high‐SP subjects, whereas a high‐mark expectation increased incorrect responses in high‐SR subjects. These results suggest two different mechanisms mediating inhibition/disinhibition: one associated with aversive motivation, and the other with appetitive motivation. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.


2015 ◽  
Vol 38 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melissa Soenke ◽  
Mary-Frances O'Connor ◽  
Jeff Greenberg

AbstractKalisch et al.'s PASTOR model synthesizes current knowledge of resilience, focusing on mechanisms as a common pathway to outcomes and highlighting neuroscience as a method for exploring this. We propose the model broaden its definition of resiliency to include positive indices of recovery, include positive affect as a mechanism, and approach motivation as distinct from overcoming aversive motivation.


Author(s):  
Vincent D. Campese ◽  
Robert M. Sears ◽  
Justin M. Moscarello ◽  
Lorenzo Diaz-Mataix ◽  
Christopher K. Cain ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  

Author(s):  
Debbie M. Yee ◽  
Xiamin Leng ◽  
Amitai Shenhav ◽  
Todd S. Braver

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document