Cargando…

Goal-Conflict EEG Theta and Biased Economic Decisions: A Role for a Second Negative Motivation System

Economic decision biases can reflect emotion and emotion dysfunction. Economic paradigms thus provide a solid framework for analysis of brain processes related to emotion and its disorders. Importantly for economic decisions, goal-conflict activates different negative motivational processes than pur...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Neo, Phoebe S.-H., Tinker, Jessica, McNaughton, Neil
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7174654/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32351359
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2020.00342
_version_ 1783524669532405760
author Neo, Phoebe S.-H.
Tinker, Jessica
McNaughton, Neil
author_facet Neo, Phoebe S.-H.
Tinker, Jessica
McNaughton, Neil
author_sort Neo, Phoebe S.-H.
collection PubMed
description Economic decision biases can reflect emotion and emotion dysfunction. Economic paradigms thus provide a solid framework for analysis of brain processes related to emotion and its disorders. Importantly for economic decisions, goal-conflict activates different negative motivational processes than pure loss; generating negative decision biases linked to anxiety and fear, respectively. Previously, right frontal goal-conflict specific EEG rhythmicity (GCSR) was shown to reflect anxiety processing. Here, we assessed GCSR in a forced-choice, economic decision-making task. Ninety participants were tested in three key conditions where gain:loss ratios of left mouse clicks were set to 75:25 (GAIN), 50:50 (CONFLICT) and 25:75 (LOSS). Right clicks produced no monetary consequences and skipped the current trial. The participants were not told the different conditions but could learn about them by associating the background stimulus color with the specific payoff. Goal-conflict was defined as the mathematical contrast of activity in CONFLICT minus the average of that in GAIN and LOSS. Replicating previous findings with somewhat different conditions, right frontal GCSR was detected. Importantly, greater right frontal GCSR significantly predicted a preference for economic safety in CONFLICT but not in GAIN or LOSS; but did not predict trait anxiety or neuroticism. We conclude that goal-conflict has unique neuroeconomics effects on choice biases; and that these reflect anxiety processing that is not effectively captured by trait anxiety or neuroticism.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7174654
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-71746542020-04-29 Goal-Conflict EEG Theta and Biased Economic Decisions: A Role for a Second Negative Motivation System Neo, Phoebe S.-H. Tinker, Jessica McNaughton, Neil Front Neurosci Neuroscience Economic decision biases can reflect emotion and emotion dysfunction. Economic paradigms thus provide a solid framework for analysis of brain processes related to emotion and its disorders. Importantly for economic decisions, goal-conflict activates different negative motivational processes than pure loss; generating negative decision biases linked to anxiety and fear, respectively. Previously, right frontal goal-conflict specific EEG rhythmicity (GCSR) was shown to reflect anxiety processing. Here, we assessed GCSR in a forced-choice, economic decision-making task. Ninety participants were tested in three key conditions where gain:loss ratios of left mouse clicks were set to 75:25 (GAIN), 50:50 (CONFLICT) and 25:75 (LOSS). Right clicks produced no monetary consequences and skipped the current trial. The participants were not told the different conditions but could learn about them by associating the background stimulus color with the specific payoff. Goal-conflict was defined as the mathematical contrast of activity in CONFLICT minus the average of that in GAIN and LOSS. Replicating previous findings with somewhat different conditions, right frontal GCSR was detected. Importantly, greater right frontal GCSR significantly predicted a preference for economic safety in CONFLICT but not in GAIN or LOSS; but did not predict trait anxiety or neuroticism. We conclude that goal-conflict has unique neuroeconomics effects on choice biases; and that these reflect anxiety processing that is not effectively captured by trait anxiety or neuroticism. Frontiers Media S.A. 2020-04-15 /pmc/articles/PMC7174654/ /pubmed/32351359 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2020.00342 Text en Copyright © 2020 Neo, Tinker and McNaughton. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Neuroscience
Neo, Phoebe S.-H.
Tinker, Jessica
McNaughton, Neil
Goal-Conflict EEG Theta and Biased Economic Decisions: A Role for a Second Negative Motivation System
title Goal-Conflict EEG Theta and Biased Economic Decisions: A Role for a Second Negative Motivation System
title_full Goal-Conflict EEG Theta and Biased Economic Decisions: A Role for a Second Negative Motivation System
title_fullStr Goal-Conflict EEG Theta and Biased Economic Decisions: A Role for a Second Negative Motivation System
title_full_unstemmed Goal-Conflict EEG Theta and Biased Economic Decisions: A Role for a Second Negative Motivation System
title_short Goal-Conflict EEG Theta and Biased Economic Decisions: A Role for a Second Negative Motivation System
title_sort goal-conflict eeg theta and biased economic decisions: a role for a second negative motivation system
topic Neuroscience
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7174654/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32351359
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2020.00342
work_keys_str_mv AT neophoebesh goalconflicteegthetaandbiasedeconomicdecisionsaroleforasecondnegativemotivationsystem
AT tinkerjessica goalconflicteegthetaandbiasedeconomicdecisionsaroleforasecondnegativemotivationsystem
AT mcnaughtonneil goalconflicteegthetaandbiasedeconomicdecisionsaroleforasecondnegativemotivationsystem