4.8 Article

Alpha oscillations and event-related potentials reflect distinct dynamics of attribute construction and evidence accumulation in dietary decision making

Journal

ELIFE
Volume 10, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELIFE SCIENCES PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.7554/eLife.60874

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada [RGPIN-2016-05641]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Regulatory focus has different effects on attribute value construction (AVC) and evidence accumulation (EA), with regulation having minimal impact on taste-attribute signals but significant impact on EA. Changes in frontal and occipital alpha power can predict individual success in regulating tastiness, while changes in frontal and occipital theta power during regulation can predict weaker influence of food tastiness on behavior.
How does regulatory focus alter attribute value construction (AVC) and evidence accumulation (EA)? We recorded electroencephalogram during food choices while participants responded naturally or regulated their choices by attending to health attributes or decreasing attention to taste attributes. Using a drift diffusion model, we predicted the time course of neural signals associated with AVC and EA. Results suggested that event-related potentials (ERPs) correlated with the time course of model-predicted taste-attribute signals, with no modulation by regulation. By contrast, suppression of frontal and occipital alpha power correlated with the time course of EA, tracked tastiness according to its goal relevance, and predicted individual variation in successful down-regulation of tastiness. Additionally, an earlier rise in frontal and occipital theta power represented food tastiness more strongly during regulation and predicted a weaker influence of food tastiness on behaviour. Our findings illuminate how regulation modifies the representation of attributes during the process of EA.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available