The ERP, frequency, and time–frequency correlates of feedback processing: Insights from a large sample study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Human learning, at least in part, appears to be dependent on the evaluation of how outcomes of our actions align with our expectations. Over the past 23 years, electroencephalography (EEG) has been used to probe the neural signatures of feedback processing. Seminal work demonstrated a difference in the human event-related potential (ERP) dependent on whether people were processing correct or incorrect feedback. Since then, these feedback evoked ERPs have been associated with reinforcement learning and conflict monitoring, tied to subsequent behavioral adaptations, and shown to be sensitive to a wide range of factors (e.g., Parkinson's disease). Recently, research has turned to frequency decomposition techniques to examine how changes in the EEG power spectra are related to underlying learning mechanisms. Although the literature on the neural correlates of feedback processing is vast, there are still methodological discrepancies and differences in results across studies. Here, we provide reference results and an investigation of methodological considerations for the ERP (reward positivity) and frequency (delta and theta power) correlates of feedback evaluation with a large sample size. Specifically, participants (n = 500) performed a two-armed bandit task while we recorded EEG. Our findings provide key information about the data characteristics and relationships that exist between the neural signatures of feedback evaluation. Additionally, we conclude with selected methodological recommendations for standardization of future research. All data and scripts are freely provided to facilitate open science.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".