Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xm8r8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-25T19:05:18.010Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reward context sensitivity impairment following severe TBI: An event-related potential investigation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 May 2007

MICHAEL J. LARSON ,
KIESA G. KELLY ,
DAVID A. STIGGE-KAUFMAN ,
ILONA M. SCHMALFUSS  and
WILLIAM M. PERLSTEIN
MICHAEL J. LARSON
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical and Health Psychology, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida
KIESA G. KELLY
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical and Health Psychology, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida Department of Psychology, Tennessee State University, Nashville, Tennessee
DAVID A. STIGGE-KAUFMAN
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical and Health Psychology, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida
ILONA M. SCHMALFUSS
Affiliation:
North Florida/South Georgia Veterans Administration and University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida
WILLIAM M. PERLSTEIN
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical and Health Psychology, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida Department of Psychiatry, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida McKnight Brain Institute, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Many rehabilitation protocols following traumatic brain injury (TBI) utilize reinforcement and reward to influence behavior and facilitate recovery; however, previous studies suggest survivors of severe TBI demonstrate impairments in contingency utilization and sensitivity. The precise neurobiological mechanisms underlying these deficits have not been thoroughly explored, but can be examined using the “feedback-related negativity” (FRN)— an event-related potential (ERP) component evoked following performance or response feedback (e.g., whether a monetary reward is obtained) with a larger FRN following unfavorable than favorable outcomes—particularly when unfavorable feedback occurs in the context of high reward probability. We examined ERPs elicited by favorable (monetary gain: “reward”) and unfavorable (no monetary gain: “non-reward”) feedback during a guessing task where probability of reward outcome was manipulated in survivors of severe TBI and demographically matched healthy participants. Consistent with previous findings, controls showed larger amplitude FRN to non-reward feedback and the largest amplitude FRN following a non-reward when reward probability context was greatest. In contrast, FRN in TBI participants did not significantly differentiate non-reward from reward trials and their FRN was largest to reward trials in the low reward probability context. Findings implicate an electrophysiological marker of impaired reward context sensitivity following severe TBI. (JINS, 2007, 13, 615–625.)

Keywords

Traumatic brain injury (TBI)Event-related potential (ERP)FeedbackRehabilitationFeedback related negativity (FRN)Error related negativity (ERN)Contingency
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society , Volume 13 , Issue 4 , July 2007 , pp. 615 - 625
Copyright
© 2007 The International Neuropsychological Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bechara, A. (2004). The role of emotion in decision-making: Evidence from neurological patients with orbitofrontal damage. Brain Cognition, 55, 30–40.Google Scholar
Bechara, A., Damasio, A.R., Damasio, H., & Anderson, S.W. (1994). Insensitivity to future consequences following damage to human prefrontal cortex. Cognition, 50, 7–15.Google Scholar
Bechara, A., Tranel, D., & Damasio, H. (2000). Characterization of the decision-making deficit of patients with ventromedial prefrontal cortex lesions. Brain, 123, 2189–2202.Google Scholar
Bechara, A., Tranel, D., Damasio, H., & Damasio, A.R. (1996). Failure to respond autonomically to anticipated future outcomes following damage to the prefrontal cortex. Cerebral Cortex, 6, 215–225.Google Scholar
Beck, A.T. (1996). Beck Depression Inventory—Second Edition (BDI-II). USA: The Psychological Corporation.
Berg, P. & Scherg, M. (1994). A multiple source approach to the correction of eye artifacts. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 90, 229–241.Google Scholar
Bertrand, O., Perrin, F., & Pernier, J. (1985). A theoretical justification of the average-reference in topographic evoked potential studies. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 62, 462–464.Google Scholar
Bigler, E.D. (1990). Neuropathology of traumatic brain injury. In E.D. Bigler (Ed.), Traumatic Brain Injury. Austin, TX: Pro-ed.
Bond, M.R. (1986). Neurobehavioral sequelae of closed head injury. In I. Grant & K.M. Adams (Eds.), Neuropsychological assessment of neuropsychological disorders (pp. 347–373). New York: Oxford University Press.
Bush, G., Luu, P., & Posner, M.I. (2000). Cognitive and emotional influences in anterior cingulate cortex. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 215–222.Google Scholar
Clark, J.H. (1924). The Ishihara test for color blindness. American Journal of Physiological Optics, 5, 269–276.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
Fuster, J.M. (1997). The prefrontal cortex. Anatomy, physiology, and neuropsychology of the frontal lobe. (3rd ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven.
Gehring, W.J. & Willoughby, A.R. (2002). The medial frontal cortex and the rapid processing of monetary gains and losses. Science, 295, 2279–2282.Google Scholar
Gerstenbrand, F. & Stepan, C.H. (2001). Mild traumatic brain injury. Brain Injury, 15, 95–97.Google Scholar
Grafman, J., Schwab, K., Warden, D., Pridgen, A., Brown, H.R., & Salazar, A.M. (1996). Frontal lobe injuries, violence, and aggression: A report of the Vietnam Head Injury Study. Neurology, 46, 1231–1238.Google Scholar
Hajcak, G., Moser, J.S., Holroyd, C.B., & Simons, R.F. (2006). The feedback-related negativity reflects the binary evaluation of good versus bad outcomes. Biological Psychology, 71, 148–154.Google Scholar
Holroyd, C.B. (2004). A note on the Oddball N200 and the feedback ERN. In M. Ullsperger & M. Falkenstein (Eds.), Errors, conflicts, and the brain. current opinions in performance monitoring (pp. 211–218). Leipzig: MPI of Cognitive Neuroscience.
Holroyd, C.B. & Coles, M.G.H. (2002). The neural basis of human error processing: Reinforcement learning, dopamine, and the error-related negativity. Psychological Review, 109, 679–709.Google Scholar
Holroyd, C.B., Hajcak, G., & Larsen, J.T. (2006). The good, the bad, and the neutral: Electrophysiological responses to feedback stimuli. Brain Research, 1105, 93–101.Google Scholar
Holroyd, C.B., Larsen, J.T., & Cohen, J.D. (2004). Context dependence of the event-related potential associated with reward and punishment. Psychophysiology, 41, 245–253.Google Scholar
Holroyd, C.B., Nieuwenhuis, S., Yeung, N., & Cohen, J.D. (2003). Errors in reward predication are reflected in the event-related potential. Neuroreport, 14, 2481–2484.Google Scholar
Ille, N., Berg, P., & Scherg, M. (1997). A spatial components method for continuous artifact correction in EEG and MEG. Biomedical Technology, 42, 80–83.Google Scholar
Ille, N., Berg, P., & Scherg, M. (2002). Artifact correction of the ongoing EEG using spatial filters based on artifact and brain signal topographies. Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology, 19, 113–124.Google Scholar
Kaelin, D.L., Cifu, D.X., & Matthies, B. (1996). Methylphenidate effect on attention deficit in the acutely brain-injured adult. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 77, 6–9.Google Scholar
King, N.S., Crawford, S., Wenden, F.J., Moss, N.E., & Wade, D.T. (1997). Interventions and service need following mild and moderate head injury: The Oxford Head Injury Service. Clinical Rehabilitation, 11, 13–27.Google Scholar
Larson, M.J., Perlstein, W.M., Demery, J.A., & Stigge-Kaufman, D.A. (2006a). Cognitive control impairments in traumatic brain injury. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 28, 968–986.Google Scholar
Larson, M.J., Perlstein, W.M., Stigge-Kaufman, D.A., Kelly, K.G., & Dotson, V.M. (2006b). Affective context-induced modulation of the error-related negativity. Neuroreport, 17, 329–333.Google Scholar
Larson, M.J., Stigge-Kaufman, D.A., Schmalfus, I.M., & Perlstein, W.M. (submitted). Performance monitoring, error processing, and evaluative control following severe TBI.
Levin, H.S., Amparo, E., Eisenberg, H.M., Williams, D.H., High, W.M., Jr., McArdle, C.B., & Weiner, R.L. (1987). Magnetic resonance imaging and computerized tomography in relation to the neurobehavioral sequelae of mild and moderate head injuries. Journal of Neurosurgery, 66, 706–713.Google Scholar
Levine, B., Robertson, I.H., Clare, L., Carter, G., Hong, J., Wilson, B.A., Duncan, J., & Stuss D.T. (2000). Rehabilitation of executive functioning: An experimental-clinical validation of goal management training. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 6, 299–312.Google Scholar
Lezak, M.D., Howieson, D.B., & Loring, D.W. (2004). Neuropsychological Assessment (4th ed.). New York: Oxford Press.
McAllister, T.W., Flashman, L.A., Sparling, M.B., & Saykin, A.J. (2004). Working memory deficits in traumatic brain injury: Catecholaminergic mechanisms and prospects for treatment—A review. Brain Injury, 18, 331–350.Google Scholar
McMillan, T.M., Jongen, E.L., & Greenwood, R.J. (1996). Assessment of post-traumatic amnesia after severe closed head injury: Retrospective or prospective? Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry, 60, 422–427.Google Scholar
Meythaler, J.M., Peduzzi, J.D., Eleftheriou, E., & Novack, T.A. (2001). Current concepts: Diffuse axonal injury-associated traumatic brain injury. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 82, 1461–1471.Google Scholar
Miller, L.A. (1992). Impulsivity, risk-taking, and the ability to synthesize fragmented information after frontal lobectomy. Neuropsychologia, 30, 69–79.Google Scholar
Napolitano, E., Elovic, E.P., & Qureshi, A.I. (2005). Pharmacological stimulant treatment of neurocognitive and functional deficits after traumatic and non-traumatic brain injury. Medical Science Monitor, 11, RA212–220.Google Scholar
Nieuwenhuis, S., Slagter, H.A., von Geusau, H.J., Heslenfeld, D.J., & Holroyd, C.B. (2005). Knowing good from bad: differential activation of human cortical areas by positive and negative outcomes. European Journal of Neuroscience, 21, 3161–3168.Google Scholar
Oddy, M., Coughlan, T., Tyerman, A., & Jenkins, D. (1985). Social adjustment after closed head injury: A further follow-up seven years after injury. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry, 48, 564–568.Google Scholar
Park, N.W., Conrod, B., Hussain, Z., Murphy, K.J., Rewilak, D., & Black, S.E. (2003). A treatment program for individuals with deficient evaluative processing and consequent impaired social and risk judgement. Neurocase, 9, 51–62.Google Scholar
Perlstein, W.M., Cole, M.A., Demery, J., Seignourel, P.J., Dixit, N.K., Larson, M.J., & Briggs, R.W. (2004). Parametric manipulation of working memory load in traumatic brain injury: Behavioral and neural correlates. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 10, 724–741.Google Scholar
Perlstein, W.M., Larson, M.J., Dotson, V.M., & Kelly, K.G. (2006). Temporal dissociation of components of cognitive control dysfunction in severe TBI: ERPs and the cued-Stroop task. Neuropsychologia, 44, 260–274.Google Scholar
Plenger, P.M., Dixon, C.E., Castillo, R.M., Frankowski, R.F., Yablon, S.A., & Levin, H.S. (1996). Subacute methylphenidate treatment for moderate to moderately severe traumatic brain injury: A preliminary double-blind placebo-controlled study. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 77, 536–540.Google Scholar
Rolls, E.T. (2000). The orbitofrontal cortex and reward. Cerebral Cortex, 10, 284–294.Google Scholar
Ruchsow, M., Grothe, J., Spitzer, M., & Kiefer, M. (2002). Human anterior cingulate cortex is activated by negative feedback: Evidence from event-related potentials in a guessing task. Neuroscience Letters, 14, 203–206.Google Scholar
Salmond, C.H., Menon, D.K., Chatfield, D.A., Pickard, J.D., & Sahakian, B.J. (2005). Deficits in decision-making in head injury survivors. Journal of Neurotrauma, 22, 613–622.Google Scholar
Schlund, M.W. (2002a). Effects of acquired brain injury on adaptive choice and the role of reduced sensitivity to contingencies. Brain Injury, 16, 527–535.Google Scholar
Schlund, M.W. (2002b). The effects of brain injury on choice and sensitivity to remote consequences: Deficits in discriminating response-consequence relations. Brain Injury, 16, 347–357.Google Scholar
Schlund, M.W. & Pace, G.M. (2000). The effects of traumatic brain injury on reporting and responding to causal relations: An investigation of sensitivity to reinforcement contingencies. Brain Injury, 14, 573–583.Google Scholar
Schlund, M.W., Pace, G.M., & McGready, J. (2001). Relations between decision-making deficits and discriminating contingencies following brain injury. Brain Injury, 15, 347–357.Google Scholar
Seignourel, P.J., Robins, D.L., Larson, M.J., Demery, J.A., Cole, M., & Perlstein, W.M. (2005). Cognitive control in closed head injury: Context maintenance dysfunction or prepotent response inhibition deficit? Neuropsychology, 19, 578–590.Google Scholar
Shallice, T. & Burgess, P.W. (1991). Deficits in strategy application following frontal lobe damage in man. Brain, 114, 727–741.Google Scholar
Soeda, A., Nakashima, T., Okumura, A., Kuwata, K., Shinoda, J., & Iwama, T. (2005). Cognitive impairment after traumatic brain injury: A functional magnetic resonance imaging study using the Stroop task. Neuroradiology, 47, 501–507.Google Scholar
Speilberger, C.D., Gorusch, R.L., Lushene, R., Vagg, P.R., & Jacobs, G.A. (1983). Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Palo Alto, California: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Tateno, A., Jorge, R.E., & Robinson, R.G. (2003). Clinical correlates of aggressive behavior after traumatic brain injury. The Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 15, 155–160.Google Scholar
Teasdale, G. & Jennett, B. (1974). Assessment of coma and impaired consciousness: A practical scale. Lancet, ii, 81–84.Google Scholar
van Meel, C.S., Oosterlaan, J., Heslenfeld, D.J., & Sergeant, J.A. (2005). Telling good from bad news: ADHD differentially affects processing of positive and negative feedback during guessing. Neuropsychologia, 43, 1946–1954.Google Scholar
van Veen, V., Holroyd, C.B., Cohen, J.D., Stenger, V.A., & Carter, C.S. (2004). Errors without conflict: Implications for performance monitoring theories of anterior cingulate cortex. Brain and Cognition, 56, 267–276.Google Scholar
Wagner, A.K., Sokoloski, J.E., Ren, D., Chen, X., Khan, A.S., Zafonte, R.D., Michael, A.C., & Dixon, C.E. (2005). Controlled cortical impact injury affects dopaminergic transmission in the rat striatum. Journal of Neurochemistry, 95, 457–465.Google Scholar
Weddell, R., Oddy, M., & Jenkins, D. (1980). Social adjustment after rehabilitation: A two year follow-up of patients with severe head injury. Psychological Medicine, 10, 257–263.Google Scholar
Yasuda, A., Sato, A., Miyawaki, K., Kumano, H., & Kuboki, T. (2004). Error-related negativity reflects detection of negative reward prediction error. Neuroreport, 15, 2561–2565.Google Scholar