The misattribution of emotions and the error-related negativity: A registered report

Aversiveness of errors and the error-related negativity (ERN): A systematic review on the affective states' manipulations findings

Error-related negativity (ERN) has been used to investigate neural mechanisms underlying error processing and conflict monitoring. Recent evidence highlights that affective and motivational states modulate the ERN and that aversiveness of errors plays a vital role in error monitoring. Therefore, our primary objective was to systematically evaluate and describe the influence of affect state-related manipulations on the ERN. A total of 51 publications identified from PsyInfo, PubMed, and PsyArticles databases were included following the Prisma procedures for systematic reviews. Papers were analyzed using sample attributes, psychological paradigms, and states manipulations. The present study shows that the ERN component has recurrently appeared to be sensitive to manipulations of affective states in the reviewed literature. However, conclusive findings concerning the affect state-dependent properties of the ERN remain elusive. Results are discussed considering heterogeneity in paradigms, variables, and the state-trait interactions. Furthermore, recommendations for future high-quality studies are provided along with the necessity of upcoming high-power replication attempts and more studies with positive affect manipulations.

Experience with opioids does not modify the brain network involved in expectations of placebo analgesia

Placebo analgesia (PA) is defined as a psychobiological phenomenon triggered by the information surrounding an analgesic drug instead of its inherent pharmacological properties. PA is hypothesized to be formed through either verbal suggestions or conditioning. The present study aims at disentangling the neural correlates of expectations effects with or without conditioning through prior experience using the model of PA.

We addressed this question by recruiting two groups of individuals holding comparable verbally‐induced expectations regarding morphine analgesia but either (i) with or (ii) without prior experience with opioids. We then contrasted the two groups' neurocognitive response to acute heat‐pain induction following the injection of sham morphine using electroencephalography (EEG). Topographic ERP analyses of the N2 and P2 pain evoked potential components allowed to test the hypothesis that PA involves distinct neural networks when induced by expectations with or without prior experience.

First, we confirmed that the two groups showed corresponding expectations of morphine analgesia (Hedges' g_s < .4 positive control criteria, g_s = .37 observed difference), and that our intervention induced a medium‐sized PA (Hedges' g_av ≥ .5 positive control, g_av = .6 observed PA). We then tested our hypothesis on the recruitment of different PA‐associated brain networks in individuals with versus without prior experience with opioids and found no evidence for a topographic N2 and P2 ERP components difference between the two groups. Our results thus suggest that in the presence of verbally‐induced expectations, modifications in the PA‐associated brain activity by conditioning are either absent or very small.

Conflict monitoring and the affective-signaling hypothesis-An integrative review

Conflict-monitoring theory proposes that conflict between incompatible responses is registered by a dedicated monitoring system, and that this conflict signal triggers changes of attentional filters and adapts control processes according to the current task demands. Extending the conflict-monitoring theory, it has been suggested that conflict elicits a negative affective reaction, and that it is this affective signal that is monitored and then triggers control adaptation. This review article summarizes research on a potential signaling function of affect for cognitive control. First, we provide an overview of the conflict-monitoring theory, discuss neurophysiological and behavioral markers of monitoring and control adaptation, and introduce the affective-signaling hypothesis. In a second part, we review relevant studies that address the questions of (i) whether conflict elicits negative affect, (ii) whether negative affect is monitored, and (iii) whether affect modulates control. In sum, the reviewed literature supports the claim that conflict and errors trigger negative affect and provides some support for the claim that affect modulates control. However, studies on the monitoring of negative affect and the influence of phasic affect on control are ambiguous. On the basis of these findings, in a third part, we critically reassess the affective-signaling hypothesis, discuss relevant challenges to this account, and suggest future research strategies.