Limits...
Cardiac and electro-cortical concomitants of social feedback processing in women.

Dekkers LM, van der Molen MJ, Gunther Moor B, van der Veen FM, van der Molen MW - Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci (2015)

Bottom Line: Consistent with previous reports, results revealed transient cardiac slowing to be selectively prolonged to unexpected social rejection feedback.Both early and late P3 amplitudes were shown to be context dependent, in that they were more pronounced to social as compared with non-social feedback.This pattern of findings indicates that social acceptance and rejection feedback have widespread effects on bodily state and brain function, which are modulated by prior expectancies.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Weesperplein 4, 1018 XA Amsterdam, The Netherlands, lmsdekkers@gmail.com.

No MeSH data available.


IBI difference scores for the third IBI contingent upon the feedback stimulus. A: IBI difference scores for the third IBI contingent upon the feedback stimulus (i.e. IBI 3) for each condition in the social-judgment task. B: IBI difference score for the third IBI contingent upon the feedback stimulus (i.e. IBI 3) for each condition in the age-judgment task. Error bars indicate SEM. As illustrated in this Figure, the feedback effect on IBI 3 has a negative value in all conditions, with the exception of the ‘Yes’–‘No’ condition in the social-judgment task (A). For unexpected social rejection feedback, IBI 3 has a positive value, indicating a transient delay in the recovery to baseline heart rate.
© Copyright Policy - creative-commons
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4631146&req=5

nsv039-F3: IBI difference scores for the third IBI contingent upon the feedback stimulus. A: IBI difference scores for the third IBI contingent upon the feedback stimulus (i.e. IBI 3) for each condition in the social-judgment task. B: IBI difference score for the third IBI contingent upon the feedback stimulus (i.e. IBI 3) for each condition in the age-judgment task. Error bars indicate SEM. As illustrated in this Figure, the feedback effect on IBI 3 has a negative value in all conditions, with the exception of the ‘Yes’–‘No’ condition in the social-judgment task (A). For unexpected social rejection feedback, IBI 3 has a positive value, indicating a transient delay in the recovery to baseline heart rate.

Mentions: The cardiac response to feedback is presented in Figure 2. For the social-judgment task, the repeated measures ANOVA, yielded a Congruency by Feedback Type interaction, F(1, 23) = 7.22, P = 0.01, > = 0.24, that was included in a Congruency by Feedback Type by IBI interaction, F(2, 22) = 5.18, P = 0.01, > = 0.32; other Ps > 0.05. Subsequent analyses on separate IBIs indicated that IBI 3 associated with unexpected social rejection feedback (‘Yes’–‘No’) was longer than the corresponding IBI associated with unexpected social acceptance feedback (‘No’–‘Yes’), t(23) =−3.16, P = 0.004, d = 0.56. None of the other pairwise comparisons reached significance, Ps > 0.05. The effect of feedback on IBI 3 is presented in Figure 3 for illustrative purposes only. A similar analysis for the age-judgment task revealed that the IBI response did not discriminate between conditions in this task, P > 0.05.Fig. 2


Cardiac and electro-cortical concomitants of social feedback processing in women.

Dekkers LM, van der Molen MJ, Gunther Moor B, van der Veen FM, van der Molen MW - Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci (2015)

IBI difference scores for the third IBI contingent upon the feedback stimulus. A: IBI difference scores for the third IBI contingent upon the feedback stimulus (i.e. IBI 3) for each condition in the social-judgment task. B: IBI difference score for the third IBI contingent upon the feedback stimulus (i.e. IBI 3) for each condition in the age-judgment task. Error bars indicate SEM. As illustrated in this Figure, the feedback effect on IBI 3 has a negative value in all conditions, with the exception of the ‘Yes’–‘No’ condition in the social-judgment task (A). For unexpected social rejection feedback, IBI 3 has a positive value, indicating a transient delay in the recovery to baseline heart rate.
© Copyright Policy - creative-commons
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4631146&req=5

nsv039-F3: IBI difference scores for the third IBI contingent upon the feedback stimulus. A: IBI difference scores for the third IBI contingent upon the feedback stimulus (i.e. IBI 3) for each condition in the social-judgment task. B: IBI difference score for the third IBI contingent upon the feedback stimulus (i.e. IBI 3) for each condition in the age-judgment task. Error bars indicate SEM. As illustrated in this Figure, the feedback effect on IBI 3 has a negative value in all conditions, with the exception of the ‘Yes’–‘No’ condition in the social-judgment task (A). For unexpected social rejection feedback, IBI 3 has a positive value, indicating a transient delay in the recovery to baseline heart rate.
Mentions: The cardiac response to feedback is presented in Figure 2. For the social-judgment task, the repeated measures ANOVA, yielded a Congruency by Feedback Type interaction, F(1, 23) = 7.22, P = 0.01, > = 0.24, that was included in a Congruency by Feedback Type by IBI interaction, F(2, 22) = 5.18, P = 0.01, > = 0.32; other Ps > 0.05. Subsequent analyses on separate IBIs indicated that IBI 3 associated with unexpected social rejection feedback (‘Yes’–‘No’) was longer than the corresponding IBI associated with unexpected social acceptance feedback (‘No’–‘Yes’), t(23) =−3.16, P = 0.004, d = 0.56. None of the other pairwise comparisons reached significance, Ps > 0.05. The effect of feedback on IBI 3 is presented in Figure 3 for illustrative purposes only. A similar analysis for the age-judgment task revealed that the IBI response did not discriminate between conditions in this task, P > 0.05.Fig. 2

Bottom Line: Consistent with previous reports, results revealed transient cardiac slowing to be selectively prolonged to unexpected social rejection feedback.Both early and late P3 amplitudes were shown to be context dependent, in that they were more pronounced to social as compared with non-social feedback.This pattern of findings indicates that social acceptance and rejection feedback have widespread effects on bodily state and brain function, which are modulated by prior expectancies.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Weesperplein 4, 1018 XA Amsterdam, The Netherlands, lmsdekkers@gmail.com.

No MeSH data available.