The neural correlates of continuous feedback processing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Feedback processing is commonly studied by analyzing the brain's response to discrete rather than continuous events. Such studies have led to the hypothesis that rapid phasic midbrain dopaminergic activity tracks reward prediction errors (RPEs), the effects of which are measurable at the scalp via electroencephalography (EEG). Although studies using continuous feedback are sparse, recent animal work suggests that moment-to-moment changes in reward are tracked by slowly ramping midbrain dopaminergic activity. Some have argued that these ramping signals index state values rather than RPEs. Our goal here was to develop an EEG measure of continuous feedback processing in humans, then test whether its behavior could be accounted for by the RPE hypothesis. Participants completed a stimulus-response learning task in which a continuous reward cue gradually increased or decreased over time. A regression-based unmixing approach revealed EEG activity with a topography and time course consistent with the stimulus-preceding negativity (SPN), a scalp potential previously linked to reward anticipation and tonic dopamine release. Importantly, this reward-related activity depended on outcome expectancy: as predicted by the RPE hypothesis, activity for expected reward cues was reduced compared to unexpected reward cues. These results demonstrate the possibility of using human scalp-recorded potentials to track continuous feedback processing, and test candidate hypotheses of this activity.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".