↓ Skip to main content

The feedback-related negativity reflects “more or less” prediction error in appetitive and aversive conditions

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, May 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
126 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The feedback-related negativity reflects “more or less” prediction error in appetitive and aversive conditions
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, May 2014
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2014.00108
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yi Huang, Rongjun Yu

Abstract

Humans make predictions and use feedback to update their subsequent predictions. The feedback-related negativity (FRN) has been found to be sensitive to negative feedback as well as negative prediction error, such that the FRN is larger for outcomes that are worse than expected. The present study examined prediction errors in both appetitive and aversive conditions. We found that the FRN was more negative for reward omission vs. wins and for loss omission vs. losses, suggesting that the FRN might classify outcomes in a "more-or-less than expected" fashion rather than in the "better-or-worse than expected" dimension. Our findings challenge the previous notion that the FRN only encodes negative feedback and "worse than expected" negative prediction error.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 126 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Russia 1 <1%
Unknown 123 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 25%
Student > Master 24 19%
Researcher 17 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 10%
Student > Bachelor 12 10%
Other 15 12%
Unknown 14 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 55 44%
Neuroscience 24 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 7%
Computer Science 4 3%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 2%
Other 9 7%
Unknown 22 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 January 2016.
All research outputs
#16,721,208
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#7,423
of 11,538 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#138,219
of 239,996 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#70
of 118 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,538 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.9. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 239,996 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 118 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.