How and when social evaluative feedback is processed in the brain: A systematic review on ERP studies

• Published in: Cortex 2024-04, Vol.173, p.187-207
• Main Authors: Peters, Antje, Helming, Hanne, Bruchmann, Maximilian, Wiegandt, Anja, Straube, Thomas, Schindler, Sebastian
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Brain - physiology; EEG/ERPs; Electroencephalography; Evaluative feedback; Evoked Potentials - physiology; Feedback, Psychological - physiology; Humans; Reward; Social feedback; Social influence
• ISSN: 0010-9452; 1973-8102; 1973-8102
• DOI: 10.1016/j.cortex.2024.02.003

Social evaluative feedback informs the receiver of the other's views, which may contain judgments of personality-related traits and/or the level of likability. Such kinds of social evaluative feedback are of particular importance to humans. Event-related potentials (ERPs) can directly measure where in the processing stream feedback valence, expectancy, or contextual relevance modulate information processing. This review provides an overview and systematization of studies and early, mid-latency, and late ERP effects. Early effects were inconsistently reported for all factors. Feedback valence effects are more consistently reported for specific mid-latency ERPs (Reward Positivity, RewP, and Early Posterior Negativity, EPN) and late positivities (P3 and Late Positive Potential, LPP). Unexpected feedback consistently increased the Feedback Related Negativity (FRN) and, less consistently, decreased P3 amplitudes. Contextual relevance of the sender (e.g., human vs computer sender) or self-relatedness increased mid-latency to late ERPs. Interactions between valence and other factors were less often found, arising during mid-latency stages, where most consistent interactions showed larger EPN and P3 amplitude differences for valent feedback in a more relevant context. The ERP findings highlight that social evaluative feedback is consistently differentiated during mid-latency processing stages. The review discusses the relevance of findings, possible shortcomings of different experimental designs, and open questions. Furthermore, we suggest concrete venues for future research.