CF did not disrupt feedback learning and cognitive performance in MS
fatigue
POSITIVE
Likelihood ratio tests revealed a significant contribution of monetary feedback [Task performance results. A) Task performance during the feedback phase (Phase 2; left panel) and test phase (Phase 3; right panel) for each group across the three feedback conditions. B) Change in performance between Phase 2 and Phase 3, which served as the measure of learning. Positive values indicate learning between phases. MS participants displayed better learning for word pairs for which they received either monetary or non-monetary performance feedback during Phase 2, compared to word pairs for which they received no feedback. NT participants displayed learning for word pairs for which they previously received non-monetary feedback compared to no feedback. There was no overall difference in learning between the two groups. State fatigue was controlled in this analysis. Note: dotted lines in Panel A denote chance performance (50% response accuracy). Dotted line in Panel B denotes no learning between phases (0% performance change). Individual points denote participant means. Error bars depict 95% confidence intervals. *With respect to performance at test, likelihood ratio tests revealed a significant contribution of Phase 2 feedback valence to model fit of Phase 3 performance data [Test phase performance results, as a function of prior feedback valence. Both MS and NT participants correctly recalled more word pairs during Phase 3 for which they previously received positive feedback during Phase 2, compared to word pairs for which they previously received negative feedback. Performance during monetary feedback and non-monetary feedback conditions were collapsed in this analysis. State fatigue was also controlled. Note: dotted line denotes chance performance (50% response accuracy). Individual points denote participant means. Error bars depict 95% confidence intervals. ***