Wahn, B. | bioRxiv Science

bioRxiv2018

The social situation affects how we process feedback about our actions

Humans achieve their goals in joint action tasks either by cooperation or competition. In the present study, we investigated the neural processes underpinning error and monetary rewards processing in such cooperative and competitive situations. We used electroencephalography (EEG) and analyzed event-related potentials (ERPs) triggered by feedback in both social situations. 26 dyads performed a joint four-alternative forced choice (4AFC) visual task either cooperatively or competitively. At the end of each trial, participants received performance feedback about their individual and joint errors and accompanying monetary rewards. Furthermore, the outcome, i.e. resulting positive, negative or neutral rewards, was dependent on the pay-off matrix, defining the social situation either as cooperative or competitive. We used linear mixed effects models to analyze the feedback-related-negativity (FRN) and used the Thresholdfree cluster enhancement (TFCE) method to explore activations of all electrodes and times. We found main effects of the outcome and social situation at mid-line frontal electrodes. The FRN was more negative for losses than wins in both social situations. However, the FRN amplitudes differed between social situations. Moreover, we compared monetary with neutral outcomes in both social situations. Our exploratory TFCE analysis revealed that processing of feedback differs between cooperative and competitive situations at right temporo-parietal electrodes where the cooperative situation elicited more positive amplitudes. Further, the differences induced by the social situations were stronger in participants with higher scores on a perspective taking test. In sum, our results replicate previous studies about the FRN and extend them by comparing neurophysiological responses to positive and negative outcomes in a task that simultaneously engages two participants in competitive and cooperative situations.

neuroscience↗

bioRxiv2017

Pupil Size Asymmetries Are Modulated By An Interaction Between Attentional Load And Task Experience

In a recently published study [1], we investigated how human pupil sizes are modulated by task experience as well as attentional load in a visuospatial task. In particular, participants performed a multiple object tracking (MOT) task while pupil sizes were recorded using binocular eyetracking measurements. To vary the attentional load, participants performed the MOT task either tracking zero or up to five targets. To manipulate the task experience, participants performed the MOT task on three consecutive days. We found that pupil sizes systematically increased with attentional load and decreased with additional task experience. For all these analyses, we averaged across the pupil sizes for the left and right eye. However, findings of a recent study [2] have suggested that also asymmetries in pupil sizes could be related to attentional processing. Given these findings, we further analyzed our data to investigate to what extent pupil size asymmetries are modulated by attentional load and task experience. We found a significant interaction effect between these two factors. That is, on the first day of the measurements, pupil size asymmetries were not modulated by attentional load while this was the case for the second and third day of the measurements. In particular, for the second and third day, pupil size asymmetries systematically increased with attentional load, indicating that attentional processing also modulates pupil size asymmetries. Given these results, we suggest that an increase in task experience (and associated reductions in arousal) uncover modulations in pupil size asymmetries related to attentional processing that are not observable for typical arousal levels. We suggest that these modulations could be a result of right-lateralized attentional processing in the brain that in turn influences structures involved in the control of pupil sizes such as the locus coeruleus. We can exclude a number of possible alternative explanations for this effect related to our experimental setup. Yet, given the novelty of this finding and the arguably speculative explanation of the underlying mechanisms, we suggest that future studies are needed to replicate the present effect and further investigate the underlying mechanisms.

neuroscience↗