Affective valence does not reflect progress prediction errors in perceptual decisions.

IF 2.5 3区 医学 Q2 BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES Cognitive Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience Pub Date : 2024-02-01 Epub Date: 2024-01-05 DOI:10.3758/s13415-023-01147-8
Alan Voodla, Andero Uusberg, Kobe Desender
{"title":"Affective valence does not reflect progress prediction errors in perceptual decisions.","authors":"Alan Voodla, Andero Uusberg, Kobe Desender","doi":"10.3758/s13415-023-01147-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Affective valence and intensity form the core of our emotional experiences. It has been proposed that affect reflects the prediction error between expected and actual states, such that better/worse-than-expected discrepancies result in positive/negative affect. However, whether the same principle applies to progress prediction errors remains unclear. We empirically and computationally evaluate the hypothesis that affect reflects the difference between expected and actual progress in forming a perceptual decision. We model affect within an evidence accumulation framework where actual progress is mapped onto the drift-rate parameter and expected progress onto an expected drift-rate parameter. Affect is computed as the difference between the expected and actual amount of accumulated evidence. We find that expected and actual progress both influence affect, but in an additive manner that does not align with a prediction error account. Our computational model reproduces both task behavior and affective ratings, suggesting that sequential sampling models provide a promising framework to model progress appraisals. These results show that although affect is sensitive to both expected and actual progress, it does not reflect the computation of a progress prediction error.</p>","PeriodicalId":50672,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognitive Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-023-01147-8","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Affective valence and intensity form the core of our emotional experiences. It has been proposed that affect reflects the prediction error between expected and actual states, such that better/worse-than-expected discrepancies result in positive/negative affect. However, whether the same principle applies to progress prediction errors remains unclear. We empirically and computationally evaluate the hypothesis that affect reflects the difference between expected and actual progress in forming a perceptual decision. We model affect within an evidence accumulation framework where actual progress is mapped onto the drift-rate parameter and expected progress onto an expected drift-rate parameter. Affect is computed as the difference between the expected and actual amount of accumulated evidence. We find that expected and actual progress both influence affect, but in an additive manner that does not align with a prediction error account. Our computational model reproduces both task behavior and affective ratings, suggesting that sequential sampling models provide a promising framework to model progress appraisals. These results show that although affect is sensitive to both expected and actual progress, it does not reflect the computation of a progress prediction error.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
情感价位并不反映知觉决策中的进度预测误差。
情感的价值和强度是我们情感体验的核心。有人提出,情感反映了预期状态与实际状态之间的预测误差,因此,比预期更好/更差的差异会导致积极/消极的情感。然而,同样的原理是否适用于进度预测误差仍不清楚。我们通过实证和计算评估了一个假设,即在形成感知决策时,情感反映了预期和实际进展之间的差异。我们在证据积累框架内建立情感模型,将实际进度映射到漂移率参数上,将预期进度映射到预期漂移率参数上。情感被计算为预期证据积累量与实际证据积累量之差。我们发现,预期进展和实际进展都会影响情绪,但影响方式是相加的,与预测错误的说法不一致。我们的计算模型重现了任务行为和情感评级,表明顺序抽样模型为进度评估建模提供了一个很有前景的框架。这些结果表明,虽然情感对预期和实际进度都很敏感,但它并不反映进度预测误差的计算。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
3.40%
发文量
64
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience (CABN) offers theoretical, review, and primary research articles on behavior and brain processes in humans. Coverage includes normal function as well as patients with injuries or processes that influence brain function: neurological disorders, including both healthy and disordered aging; and psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia and depression. CABN is the leading vehicle for strongly psychologically motivated studies of brain–behavior relationships, through the presentation of papers that integrate psychological theory and the conduct and interpretation of the neuroscientific data. The range of topics includes perception, attention, memory, language, problem solving, reasoning, and decision-making; emotional processes, motivation, reward prediction, and affective states; and individual differences in relevant domains, including personality. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience is a publication of the Psychonomic Society.
期刊最新文献
Correction: The effect of inter-letter spacing on the n170 during visual word recognition: An event-related potentials experiment. Use of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) for studying cognitive control in depressed patients: A systematic review. Abstract task sequence initiation deficit dissociates anxiety disorders from obsessive-compulsive disorder and healthy controls. Electrodermal lability and sensorimotor preparation: effects on reaction time, contingent negative variation, and heart rate. The virtual disengagement hypothesis: A neurophysiological framework for reduced empathy on social media.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1