17
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Behavioural and neural modulation of win-stay but not lose-shift strategies as a function of outcome value in Rock, Paper, Scissors

      research-article
      1 , a , 1
      Scientific Reports
      Nature Publishing Group

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Competitive environments in which individuals compete for mutually-exclusive outcomes require rational decision making in order to maximize gains but often result in poor quality heuristics. Reasons for the greater reliance on lose-shift relative to win-stay behaviour shown in previous studies were explored using the game of Rock, Paper, Scissors and by manipulating the value of winning and losing. Decision-making following a loss was characterized as relatively fast and relatively inflexible both in terms of the failure to modulate the magnitude of lose-shift strategy and the lack of significant neural modulation. In contrast, decision-making following a win was characterized as relatively slow and relatively flexible both in terms of a behavioural increase in the magnitude of win-stay strategy and a neural modulation of feedback-related negativity (FRN) and stimulus-preceding negativity (SPN) following outcome value modulation. The win-stay/ lose-shift heuristic appears not to be a unified mechanism, with the former relying on System 2 processes and the latter relying on System 1 processes. Our ability to play rationally appears more likely when the outcome is positive and when the value of wins are low, highlighting how vulnerable we can be when trying to succeed during competition.

          Related collections

          Most cited references24

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice.

          The psychological principles that govern the perception of decision problems and the evaluation of probabilities and outcomes produce predictable shifts of preference when the same problem is framed in different ways. Reversals of preference are demonstrated in choices regarding monetary outcomes, both hypothetical and real, and in questions pertaining to the loss of human lives. The effects of frames on preferences are compared to the effects of perspectives on perceptual appearance. The dependence of preferences on the formulation of decision problems is a significant concern for the theory of rational choice.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Independent coding of reward magnitude and valence in the human brain.

            Previous research has shown that two components of the event-related brain potential, the P300 and feedback negativity, are sensitive to information about rewards and penalties. The present study investigated the properties of these components in a simple gambling game that required participants to choose between cards that were unpredictably associated with monetary gains and losses of variable magnitude. The aim was to determine the sensitivity of each component to two critical features of reward stimuli: magnitude (small or large) and valence (win or loss). A double dissociation was observed, with the P300 sensitive to reward magnitude but insensitive to reward valence and the feedback negativity showing the opposite pattern, suggesting that these two fundamental features of rewarding stimuli are evaluated rapidly and separately in the human brain. Subsequent analyses provided additional evidence of functional dissociations between the feedback negativity and P300. First, the P300 (but not the feedback negativity) showed sensitivity to the reward value of alternative, nonselected stimuli. Second, individual differences in the amplitude of the feedback negativity correlated with individual differences in risk-taking behavior observed after monetary losses, whereas individual differences in P300 amplitude were related to behavioral adjustments observed in response to alternative, unchosen outcomes.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The feedback-related negativity reflects the binary evaluation of good versus bad outcomes.

              Electrophysiological studies have utilized event-related brain potentials to study neural processes related to the evaluation of environmental feedback. In particular, the feedback-related negativity (FRN) has been shown to reflect the evaluation of monetary losses and negative performance feedback. Two experiments were conducted to examine whether or not the FRN is sensitive to the magnitude of negative feedback. In both experiments, participants performed simple gambling tasks in which they could receive a range of potential outcomes on each trial. Relative to feedback indicating monetary gain, feedback indicating non-rewards was associated with a FRN in both experiments; however, the magnitude of the FRN did not demonstrate sensitivity to the magnitude of non-reward in either experiment. These data suggest that the FRN reflects the early appraisal of feedback based on a binary classification of good versus bad outcomes. These data are discussed in terms of contemporary theories of the FRN, as well as appraisal processes implicated in emotional processing.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Sci Rep
                Sci Rep
                Scientific Reports
                Nature Publishing Group
                2045-2322
                23 September 2016
                2016
                : 6
                : 33809
                Affiliations
                [1 ]University of Sussex, Falmer , BN1 9QH, UK
                Author notes
                [*]

                Present address: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI 53706, USA.

                Article
                srep33809
                10.1038/srep33809
                5034336
                27658703
                a072e709-d7fb-4464-8b9a-4ef59cd31d41
                Copyright © 2016, The Author(s)

                This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in the credit line; if the material is not included under the Creative Commons license, users will need to obtain permission from the license holder to reproduce the material. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

                History
                : 21 July 2016
                : 01 September 2016
                Categories
                Article

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article