Target and Non-Target Processing during Oddball and Cyberball: A Comparative Event-Related Potential Study.

Sarah Weschke, Michael Niedeggen
Author Information
  1. Sarah Weschke: Department of Education and Psychology, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
  2. Michael Niedeggen: Department of Education and Psychology, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany.

Abstract

The phenomenon of social exclusion can be investigated by using a virtual ball-tossing game called Cyberball. In neuroimaging studies, structures have been identified which are activated during social exclusion. But to date the underlying mechanisms are not fully disclosed. In previous electrophysiological studies it was shown that the P3 complex is sensitive to exclusion manipulations in the Cyberball paradigm and that there is a correlation between P3 amplitude and self-reported social pain. Since this posterior event-related potential (ERP) was widely investigated using the oddball paradigm, we directly compared the ERP effects elicited by the target (Cyberball: "ball possession") and non-target (Cyberball: "ball possession of a co-player) events in both paradigms. Analyses mainly focused on the effect of altered stimulus probabilities of the target and non-target events between two consecutive blocks of the tasks. In the first block, the probability of the target and non-target event was 33% (Cyberball: inclusion), in the second block target probability was reduced to 17%, and accordingly, non-target probability was increased to 66% (Cyberball: exclusion). Our results indicate that ERP amplitude differences between inclusion and exclusion are comparable to ERP amplitude effects in a visual oddball task. We therefore suggest that ERP effects--especially in the P3 range--in the Oddball and Cyberball paradigm rely on similar mechanisms, namely the probability of target and non-target events. Since the simulation of social exclusion (Cyberball) did not trigger a unique ERP response, the idea of an exclusion-specific neural alarm system is not supported. The limitations of an ERP-based approach will be discussed.

References

  1. Sci Rep. 2013;3:2027 [PMID: 24002359]
  2. Nat Commun. 2014;5:5380 [PMID: 25400102]
  3. Trends Cogn Sci. 2012 May;16(5):285-91 [PMID: 22516239]
  4. Soc Neurosci. 2010;5(5-6):483-95 [PMID: 20628967]
  5. Psychophysiology. 2005 May;42(3):356-9 [PMID: 15943689]
  6. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2000 Nov;79(5):748-62 [PMID: 11079239]
  7. Annu Rev Psychol. 2007;58:425-52 [PMID: 16968209]
  8. Science. 2003 Oct 10;302(5643):290-2 [PMID: 14551436]
  9. Clin Neurophysiol. 2007 Oct;118(10):2128-48 [PMID: 17573239]
  10. Nat Neurosci. 2006 Aug;9(8):1007-8 [PMID: 16819523]
  11. Neurosci J. 2013;2013:304674 [PMID: 26317090]
  12. Int J Psychophysiol. 2006 May;60(2):172-85 [PMID: 16510201]
  13. Pain. 2006 Dec 15;126(1-3):132-8 [PMID: 16890354]
  14. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2013 Aug;8(6):727-33 [PMID: 22577169]
  15. Science. 1997 Aug 15;277(5328):968-71 [PMID: 9252330]
  16. Neuroscience. 2014 Jun 20;271:9-22 [PMID: 24747215]
  17. Br J Psychol. 1973 Feb;64(1):17-24 [PMID: 4742442]
  18. Brain Res. 2015 Oct 22;1624:265-74 [PMID: 26236023]
  19. Psychophysiology. 1977 Sep;14(5):456-67 [PMID: 905483]
  20. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1975 Apr;38(4):387-401 [PMID: 46819]
  21. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2012 Jun;13(6):421-34 [PMID: 22551663]
  22. Behav Res Methods. 2006 Feb;38(1):174-80 [PMID: 16817529]
  23. Neuroreport. 2009 Nov 25;20(17):1518-22 [PMID: 19829163]
  24. PLoS One. 2013;8(8):e71928 [PMID: 23951269]
  25. Front Hum Neurosci. 2014 Nov 19;8:935 [PMID: 25477807]
  26. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2015 Jan;10(1):19-27 [PMID: 25140048]
  27. Psychophysiology. 2008 Jan;45(1):152-70 [PMID: 17850238]
  28. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1996 Nov;100(6):555-62 [PMID: 8980420]
  29. Int J Psychophysiol. 2013 Jul;89(1):37-47 [PMID: 23664841]
  30. Trends Cogn Sci. 2004 Jul;8(7):294-300 [PMID: 15242688]
  31. Neuroreport. 2011 Jun 22;22(9):453-8 [PMID: 21558970]
  32. Trends Cogn Sci. 2013 Aug;17(8):371-8 [PMID: 23796880]
  33. Int J Psychophysiol. 1997 Feb;25(2):169-76 [PMID: 9101341]
  34. Biol Psychol. 1987 Aug;25(1):33-60 [PMID: 3447636]
  35. J Abnorm Psychol. 2015 May;124(2):421-31 [PMID: 25603358]
  36. Soc Neurosci. 2015;10(1):55-69 [PMID: 25204663]

MeSH Term

Adult
Brain
Electroencephalography
Evoked Potentials
Female
Games, Experimental
Humans
Male
Probability
Psychological Distance
Young Adult

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0exclusionERPtargetCyberball:non-targetsocialCyberballprobabilityP3paradigmamplitudeeventsinvestigatedusingstudiesmechanismsSinceoddballeffects"ballblockinclusionOddballphenomenoncanvirtualball-tossinggamecalledneuroimagingstructuresidentifiedactivateddateunderlyingfullydisclosedpreviouselectrophysiologicalshowncomplexsensitivemanipulationscorrelationself-reportedpainposteriorevent-relatedpotentialwidelydirectlycomparedelicitedpossession"possessionco-playerparadigmsAnalysesmainlyfocusedeffectalteredstimulusprobabilitiestwoconsecutiveblockstasksfirstevent33%secondreduced17%accordinglyincreased66%resultsindicatedifferencescomparablevisualtaskthereforesuggesteffects--especiallyrange--inrelysimilarnamelysimulationtriggeruniqueresponseideaexclusion-specificneuralalarmsystemsupportedlimitationsERP-basedapproachwilldiscussedTargetNon-TargetProcessingComparativeEvent-RelatedPotentialStudy

Similar Articles

Cited By