Reward positivity biases interval production in a continuous timing task
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The neural circuits of reward processing and interval timing (including perception and production) are functionally intertwined, suggesting that it might be possible for momentary reward processing to influence subsequent timing behavior. Previous animal and human studies have mainly focused on the effect of reward on interval perception, whereas its impact on interval production is less clear. In this study, we examined whether feedback, as an example of performance-contingent reward, biases interval production. We recorded EEG from 20 participants while they engaged in a continuous drumming task with different realistic tempos (1728 trials per participant). Participants received color-coded feedback after each beat about whether they were correct (on time) or incorrect (early or late). Regression-based EEG analysis was used to unmix the rapid occurrence of a feedback response called the reward positivity (RewP), which is traditionally observed in more slow-paced tasks. Using linear mixed modelling, we found that RewP amplitude predicted timing behavior for the upcoming beat. This performance-biasing effect of the RewP was interpreted as reflecting the impact of fluctuations in dopaminergic activities on timing, and the necessity of continuous paradigms to make such observations was highlighted.
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 | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".