Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00426-016-0827-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Inhibition of no-longer relevant go responses supports flexible and goal-directed behavior. The present study explored if the interaction between going and stopping is influenced by monetary incentives. Subjects (N = 108) performed a selective stop–change task, which required them to stop and change a go response if a valid signal occurred, but to execute the planned go response if invalid signals or no signals occurred. There were two incentive groups: the punishment group lost points for unsuccessful valid-signal trials, whereas the reward group gained points for successful valid-signal trials. There was also a control group that could not win or lose points on any trials. We found that, compared with the control group, incentives encouraged subjects to slow down on no-signal trials, suggesting proactive control adjustments. Furthermore, latencies of valid change responses were shorter in the incentive groups than in the control group, suggesting improvements in executing an alternative response. However, incentives did not modulate stop latency or the interaction between going and stopping on valid-signal trials much. Finally, Bayesian analyses indicated that there was no difference between the reward and punishment groups. These findings are inconsistent with the idea that reward and punishment have distinct effects on stop performance.
Supplementary material 1 (RTF 515 kb)426_2016_827_MOESM1_ESM.rtf
Braver, T. S., Krug, M. K., Chiew, K. S., Kool, W., Westbrook, J. A., Clement, N. J., Adcock, R.A., Barch, D.M., Botvinick, M,M., Carver, C.S., Cools, R., Custers, R., Dickinson, A., Dweck, C.S., Fishbach, A., Gollwitzer, P.M., Hess, T.M., Isaacowitz, D.M., Mather, M., Murayama, K., Pessoa, L., Samanez-Larkin, G.R., Somerville, L.H., & MOMCAI group. (2014). Mechanisms of motivation–cognition interaction: Challenges and opportunities. Cognitive Affective and Behavioral Neuroscience, 14(2), 443–472. doi: 10.3758/s13415-014-0300-0. CrossRef
Camalier, C. R., Gotler, A., Murthy, A., Thompson, K. G., Logan, G. D., Palmeri, T. J., & Schall, J. D. (2007). Dynamics of saccade target selection: race model analysis of double step and search step saccade production in human and macaque. Vision Research, 47, 2187–2211. doi: 10.1016/j.visres.2007.04.021. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Guitart-Masip, M., Fuentemilla, L., Bach, D. R., Huys, Q. J. M., Dayan, P., Dolan, R. J., & Duzel, E. (2011). Action dominates valence in anticipatory representations in the human striatum and dopaminergic midbrain. Journal of Neuroscience, 31, 7867–7875. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.6376-10.2011. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Jahfari, S., Verbruggen, F., Frank, M. J., Waldorp, L. J., Colzato, L., Ridderinkhof, K. R., & Forstmann, B. U. (2012). How preparation changes the need for top–down control of the Basal Ganglia when inhibiting premature actions. Journal of Neuroscience, 32, 10870–10878. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0902-12.2012. CrossRefPubMed
Krebs, R., Hopf, J.-M., & Boehler, N. (2016). Within-trial effects of stimulus-reward associations. In T. Braver (Ed.), Motivation and cognitive control (pp. 65–82). Hove: Psychology Press.
Logan, G. D. (1985). Executive control of thought and action. Acta Psychologica, 60, 193–210. CrossRef
Logan, G. D. (1981). Attention, automaticity, and the ability to stop a speeded choice response. In J. Long & A. D. Baddeley (Eds.), Attention and performance IX (pp. 205–222). Hillsdale: Erlbaurn.
Logan, G. D., & Burkell, J. (1986). Dependence and independence in responding to double stimulation—a comparison of stop, change, and dual-task paradigms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 12, 549–563.
Rieger, M., & Gauggel, S. (1999). Inhibitory after-effects in the stop signal paradigm. British Journal of Psychology, 90, 509–518. CrossRef
Rosell-Negre, P., Bustamante, J. C., Fuentes-Claramonte, P., Costumero, V., Benabarre, S., & Barros-Loscertales, A. (2014). Reward anticipation enhances brain activation during response inhibition. Cognitive Affective and Behavioral Neuroscience, 14, 621–634. doi: 10.3758/s13415-014-0292-9. CrossRef
Schevernels, H., Bombeke, K., Van der Borght, L., Hopf, J.-M., Krebs, R. M., & Boehler, C. N. (2015). Electrophysiological evidence for the involvement of proactive and reactive control in a rewarded stop-signal task. Neuroimage, 121, 115–125. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.07.023. CrossRefPubMed
Strayer, D. L., & Kramer, A. F. (1994). Strategies and automaticity: 2. Dynamic aspects of strategy adjustment. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 342–365. CrossRef
Verbruggen, F., Logan, G. D., Liefooghe, B., & Vandierendonck, A. (2008a). Short-term aftereffects of response inhibition: repetition priming or between-trial control adjustments? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34, 413–426. doi: 10.1037/0096-15126.96.36.1993. PubMed
Verbruggen, F., & McLaren, R. (2016). Development of between-trial adjustments in a continuous stop-change task: A cross-sectional study (manuscript submitted for publication).
- Effects of reward and punishment on the interaction between going and stopping in a selective stop-change task
- Springer Berlin Heidelberg