Exploring approach motivation: Correlating self-report, frontal asymmetry, and performance in the Effort Expenditure for Rewards Task

Title
Exploring approach motivation: Correlating self-report, frontal asymmetry, and performance in the Effort Expenditure for Rewards Task
Publication Date
2020-12
Author(s)
Kaack, Imogen
Chae, Jungwoo
Shadli, Shabah Mohammad
( author )
OrcID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3607-3469
Email: sshadli@une.edu.au
UNE Id une-id:sshadli
Hillman, Kristin
Type of document
Journal Article
Language
en
Entity Type
Publication
Publisher
Springer New York LLC
Place of publication
United States of America
DOI
10.3758/s13415-020-00829-x
UNE publication id
une:1959.11/57940
Abstract

Frontal EEG asymmetry has been investigated as a physiological metric of approach motivation, with higher left frontal activity (LFA) suggested to reflect approach motivation. However, correlations between LFA and traditional metrics of approach motivation (e.g., scores from the behavioral inhibition system/behavioral approach system [BIS/BAS] survey) are inconsistent. It is also not clear how LFA correlates to approach motivation on an observable, behavioral level. Here, we tested correlations between BIS/BAS scores, LFA, and performance in the Effort Expenditure for Rewards Task (EEfRT). In our sample (n = 49), BIS/BAS results did not correlate to LFA values (resting or task states), and were also unrelated to EEfRT performance variables. We found evidence of significant and distinct correlations between LFA and EEfRT performance. Resting-state LFA positively correlated to effort expenditure on lower utility trials, where reward size and/or probability were suboptimal. Task-onset LFA captured in the first 5 min of the task was related to overall behavioral performance in the EEfRT. High task-onset LFA correlated to high trial completion rates, high-effort trial selection percentages, and overall monetary earnings. One interpretation of these initial findings is that resting-state LFA reflects approach tendencies to expend effort, but that this extends to suboptimal situations, whereas task-state LFA better reflects effortful approach toward high-utility goals. Given the relatively small sample size and the risk of Type I/II errors, we present the study as exploratory and the results as preliminary. However, the findings highlight interesting initial links between LFA and EEfRT performance. The need for larger replication studies is discussed.

Link
Citation
Cognitive, Affective and Behavioral Neuroscience, 20(6), p. 1234-1247
ISSN
1531-135X
1530-7026
Start page
1234
End page
1247

Files:

NameSizeformatDescriptionLink