Using Primary Reinforcement to Enhance Translatability of a Human Affect and Decision-Making Judgment Bias Task.
Using Primary Reinforcement to Enhance Translatability of a Human Affect and Decision-Making Judgment Bias Task.
复制标题
使用初级强化来增强人类情感和决策判断偏差任务的可翻译性。
DOI：
10.1162/jocn_a_01776
复制
发表时间：
2021
影响因子：
3.2
通讯作者：
Neville V
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Neville V
人类和非人类动物之间情感（情感）行为测量的良好可翻译性是比较研究的核心。判断偏差（JB）任务衡量模糊条件下的“乐观”和“悲观”决策，作为积极和消极情感效价的指标，已被用于人类和非人类动物。然而，人类和非人类研究之间的一个关键差异是，前者通常使用二级强化物（例如金钱），而后者通常使用一级强化物（例如食物）。为了解决这一缺陷并进一步阐明 JB 作为情感衡量标准，我们使用初级强化物为人类开发了一种新颖的 JB 任务版本。使用计算模型对 JB 任务期间的决策和报告的情感状态数据进行了分析。总体而言，参与者很好地掌握了任务，并且正如预期的那样，他们报告的情感效价与所提供果汁量的逐次试验变化相关。此外，之前从货币版本的任务中得到的结果也得到了重复：更多的积极预测错误与更积极的情感效价相关，更高的失败率与更低的情感唤醒相关，并且情感唤醒随着完成的试验数量的增加而减少。没有证据表明更积极的效价与更大的“乐观”相关，但相反，有证据表明情感效价影响参与者决策的随机性，而情感唤醒往往影响他们的错误倾向。 JB 任务的这个新颖版本为研究主要奖励和惩罚者体验、情感和决策之间的联系提供了一个有用的工具，特别是从比较的角度来看。
Good translatability of behavioral measures of affect (emotion) between human and nonhuman animals is core to comparative studies. The judgment bias (JB) task, which measures “optimistic” and “pessimistic” decision-making under ambiguity as indicators of positive and negative affective valence, has been used in both human and nonhuman animals. However, one key disparity between human and nonhuman studies is that the former typically use secondary reinforcers (e.g., money) whereas the latter typically use primary reinforcers (e.g., food). To address this deficiency and shed further light on JB as a measure of affect, we developed a novel version of a JB task for humans using primary reinforcers. Data on decision-making and reported affective state during the JB task were analyzed using computational modeling. Overall, participants grasped the task well, and as anticipated, their reported affective valence correlated with trial-by-trial variation in offered volume of juice. In addition, previous findings from monetary versions of the task were replicated: More positive prediction errors were associated with more positive affective valence, a higher lapse rate was associated with lower affective arousal, and affective arousal decreased as a function of number of trials completed. There was no evidence that more positive valence was associated with greater “optimism,” but instead, there was evidence that affective valence influenced the participants' decision stochasticity, whereas affective arousal tended to influence their propensity for errors. This novel version of the JB task provides a useful tool for investigation of the links between primary reward and punisher experience, affect, and decision-making, especially from a comparative perspective.