ArticlePsychophysiology2026
The Reward Positivity Tracks Positive Reward Prediction Errors From Feedback to Cues During Reinforcement Learning.
Article in Psychophysiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
How does the brain learn to predict rewards? According to temporal difference (TD) learning theory, reward prediction errors (RPEs) should shift from the time of outcome delivery to earlier predictive cues as stimulus-action-outcome associations are learned. The reward positivity, an electrophysiological signal believed to index sensitivity of the anterior midcingulate cortex to positive RPEs, should progressively transfer from feedback to predictive cues during learning. However, this core prediction of the reward positivity has remained largely untested. We recorded the EEG from 73 healthy adults performing a probabilistic selection task (PST) with extended training trials. The reward positivity amplitude was measured at both feedback and cue presentation during early and late training phases (first and second halves, respectively). To examine individual differences in RPE-related learning processes, we split participants into rapid and slow learner groups and fit Q-learning models to estimate separate learning rates for positive and negative feedback. Results showed clear evidence of temporal backpropagation: early in learning, the reward positivity appeared when feedback was delivered, but late in learning it disappeared from feedback and instead emerged when predictive cues appeared. Rapid learners showed more pronounced shifts in reward positivity from feedback to cue, consistent with their higher learning rates. These findings provide the first clear evidence that reward positivity demonstrates the temporal backpropagation predicted by TD learning theory. The results validate reward positivity as a neural marker of positive RPEs and highlight the importance of examining both cue-related and feedback-related brain responses to fully characterize reinforcement learning processes. Our findings have important implications for understanding individual differences in reinforcement learning and for interpreting the reward positivity in clinical populations and across the lifespan.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.