Social feedback evaluation in emerging adults with Problematic use of Internet- An EEG/ERP study
Poster No:
643
Submission Type:
Abstract Submission
Authors:
Navkiran Kalsi1, Rohit Verma2
Institutions:
1Jindal School of Psychology and Counselling, OP Jindal Global University, Sonipat, Haryana, India, 2Department of Psychiatry, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, NewDelhi, India
First Author:
Navkiran Kalsi
Jindal School of Psychology and Counselling, OP Jindal Global University
Sonipat, Haryana, India
Jindal School of Psychology and Counselling, OP Jindal Global University
Sonipat, Haryana, India
Co-Author:
Introduction:
Problematic internet use (PIU) is characterized by excessive and compulsive urge to spend time on the internet for extended periods of time that interfere with daily life functioning. Social feedback occurs daily as emerging adults navigate these new social environments (Jones & Rozenman, 2024). Determining distinct neural and behavioral responses to social acceptance and rejection associated with social feedback processing sheds light on the complexity of peer interactions associated with PIU during this critical developmental stage.
Methods:
15 individuals (age (M±SD)= 21.30 ±.96; sex(M:F)= 11:4) were screened using Young's Internet Addiction Test and categorized as PIU group (scores ≥50 and daily internet usage >6 hour/day). The Control Group (CG) consisted of 16 individuals (age (M±SD)= 21.47±1.50; sex(M:F)= 13:3 with scoring <50 and internet use <4 hour/day).
Task: A social judgment paradigm, SJT, (Somerville et al., 2006) was used and participants were led to believe that this would be a study on first impressions. The participants were asked to judge whether the given peer formed positive (i.e., like) or negative (i.e., did not like) impressions. After the participant made judgment by pressing an annotated button on a response pad, they were provided with peer feedback that would be either congruent or incongruent with their prior expectations. (Figure 1). Simultaneously, EEG brain signals were acquired using 32 channel caps based on the 10–20 system. The task consisted of two blocks (each containing 30 trials) and lasted for 10 minutes and the whole procedure lasted for approximately 35 minutes.
Behavioural data from SJT provided the number of acceptance and rejection judgments, as well as the reaction time (RT). A bias score was calculated by dividing acceptance judgments by total judgments, with scores >50% indicating an optimism bias and <50% reflecting a pessimism bias.The EEG signal was down sampled pre-processed for ocular-movements and other noise cancellation. A time window from 150 to 300ms was selected for FRN on fronto-central electrodes and 250 to 450 ms for P300 component in fronto-parietal electrodes to assess differences between PIU and CG group.
Task: A social judgment paradigm, SJT, (Somerville et al., 2006) was used and participants were led to believe that this would be a study on first impressions. The participants were asked to judge whether the given peer formed positive (i.e., like) or negative (i.e., did not like) impressions. After the participant made judgment by pressing an annotated button on a response pad, they were provided with peer feedback that would be either congruent or incongruent with their prior expectations. (Figure 1). Simultaneously, EEG brain signals were acquired using 32 channel caps based on the 10–20 system. The task consisted of two blocks (each containing 30 trials) and lasted for 10 minutes and the whole procedure lasted for approximately 35 minutes.
Behavioural data from SJT provided the number of acceptance and rejection judgments, as well as the reaction time (RT). A bias score was calculated by dividing acceptance judgments by total judgments, with scores >50% indicating an optimism bias and <50% reflecting a pessimism bias.The EEG signal was down sampled pre-processed for ocular-movements and other noise cancellation. A time window from 150 to 300ms was selected for FRN on fronto-central electrodes and 250 to 450 ms for P300 component in fronto-parietal electrodes to assess differences between PIU and CG group.
·Figue 1
Results:
PIU group showed increased RT for acceptance (1730±787.7ms) and rejection (1747.3±791) as compared to control (1386±403 and 1309±247, respectively). For the FRN, PIU group showed significant effect for the two-way interaction between social feedback* expectancy, (F (1,13) = 7.70, P = 0.017, η2p = 0.391). Further analysis showed that PIU group evoked a significantly larger amplitude for unexpected rejection (-1.29±3.27 µv) vs expected rejection (-0.11±3.33 µv) (F (1,13) = 16.15, P = 0.002, η2p = 0.574).
For the P300 component, we observed the main effect in amplitude of central P3 for social feedback (F (1,25) = 6.79, P = 0.015, ηp2 = 0.214). In Control group the social feedback on amplitude was not significant, while in PIU the amplitude was larger for unexpected acceptance (7.034±3.53 µv) than expected acceptance (5.073±2.91 µv) (F (1,12) = 9.06, P = 0.010, ηp2 = 0.44).
For the P300 component, we observed the main effect in amplitude of central P3 for social feedback (F (1,25) = 6.79, P = 0.015, ηp2 = 0.214). In Control group the social feedback on amplitude was not significant, while in PIU the amplitude was larger for unexpected acceptance (7.034±3.53 µv) than expected acceptance (5.073±2.91 µv) (F (1,12) = 9.06, P = 0.010, ηp2 = 0.44).
Conclusions:
An increase in the RT for the PIU group in their judgement about the upcoming social evaluation. The increase in RT suggests that people with problematic internet-use require more effort in predicting social evaluation.
FRN amplitude was significantly larger (more negative) for unexpected rejection than the expected rejection. FRN after unexpected rejection feedback in PIU reflect the bias for negative evaluation that intensifies the response to the expectancy violation. Additionally, The PIU has larger amplitude for unexpected acceptances than the control group. The P300 in PIU can be interpreted as a reflection to the increased feeling of reward to social acceptance and even more to unexpected acceptance (Weiqi et al., 2017). The study reveals that people with high internet-dependence have increased sensitivity for negative social feedback and continuously seek for social approval.
FRN amplitude was significantly larger (more negative) for unexpected rejection than the expected rejection. FRN after unexpected rejection feedback in PIU reflect the bias for negative evaluation that intensifies the response to the expectancy violation. Additionally, The PIU has larger amplitude for unexpected acceptances than the control group. The P300 in PIU can be interpreted as a reflection to the increased feeling of reward to social acceptance and even more to unexpected acceptance (Weiqi et al., 2017). The study reveals that people with high internet-dependence have increased sensitivity for negative social feedback and continuously seek for social approval.
Emotion, Motivation and Social Neuroscience:
Reward and Punishment 2
Social Cognition 1
Social Interaction
Modeling and Analysis Methods:
EEG/MEG Modeling and Analysis
Keywords:
ADULTS
Electroencephaolography (EEG)
Social Interactions
1|2Indicates the priority used for review
Abstract Information
By submitting your proposal, you grant permission for the Organization for Human Brain Mapping (OHBM) to distribute your work in any format, including video, audio print and electronic text through OHBM OnDemand, social media channels, the OHBM website, or other electronic publications and media.
The Open Science Special Interest Group (OSSIG) is introducing a reproducibility challenge for OHBM 2025. This new initiative aims to enhance the reproducibility of scientific results and foster collaborations between labs. Teams will consist of a “source” party and a “reproducing” party, and will be evaluated on the success of their replication, the openness of the source work, and additional deliverables. Click here for more information. Propose your OHBM abstract(s) as source work for future OHBM meetings by selecting one of the following options:
Please indicate below if your study was a "resting state" or "task-activation” study.
Healthy subjects only or patients (note that patient studies may also involve healthy subjects):
Was this research conducted in the United States?
Were any human subjects research approved by the relevant Institutional Review Board or ethics panel? NOTE: Any human subjects studies without IRB approval will be automatically rejected.
Were any animal research approved by the relevant IACUC or other animal research panel? NOTE: Any animal studies without IACUC approval will be automatically rejected.
Please indicate which methods were used in your research:
Which processing packages did you use for your study?
Provide references using APA citation style.
Somerville et al., (2006). Anterior cingulate cortex responds differentially to expectancy violation and social rejection. Nature Neuroscience, 9(8), 1007–1008. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1728
Weiqi et al., (2017). Abnormal reward and punishment sensitivity associated with Internet addicts,Computers in Human Behavior,Volume 75,Pages 678-683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.06.017.