Elaborative feedback: Engaging reward and task-relevant brain regions promotes learning in pseudoword reading aloud

Abstract

Although much is known about the cognitive and neural basis of establishing letter-sound mappings in learning word forms, relatively little is known about what makes for the most effective feedback during this process. We sought to determine the neural basis by which elaborative feedback (EF), which contains both reward-related and content-specific information, may be more helpful than feedback containing only one kind of information (simple positive feedback, PF) or the other (content feedback, CF) in learning orthography-phonology (spelling-sound) mappings for novel letter strings. Compared to CF, EF activated the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, implicated in reward processing. Compared to PF, EF activated the posterior middle temporal, superior temporal, and supramarginal gyri-regions implicated in orthography-phonology conversion. In the same comparison, EF also activated the left fusiform gyrus/visual word form area-implicated in orthographic processing. Also EF, but not CF or PF, modulated activity in the caudate nucleus. In a postscan questionnaire, EF and PF were rated as more pleasant than CF, suggesting that modulation of the caudate for EF may be due to the coupling of reward and skill content. These findings suggest the enhanced effectiveness of EF may be due to concurrent activation of reward-related and task-relevant brain regions.

Keywords: Feedback; Orthography; Phonology; Reading; Reward.

Figure 1

Figure 1a. The three types of feedback are displayed. Each type was matched on number of syllables, duration (s), pitch (Hz), and intensity (dB). 1b: Planned contrasts between the three feedback types.

Figure 2

Figure 2a. Feedback phase for Content Feedback (CF) and Elaborative Feedback (EF), where audio feedback was paired with visual presentation of the hyphenated pseudoword; Feedback phase for Positive Feedback (PF), where audio feedback was paired with no visual presentation of the pseudoword. The duration of each stimulus presentation is shown in milliseconds (ms). 2b: Testing Phase, where pseudowords were presented on the screen and participants asked to read each pseudoword aloud.

Figure 3

Figure 3a. Elaborative Feedback (EF) resulted in the highest accuracy, compared to Positive Feedback (PF) and to Content Feedback (CF); ANCOVA: p < 0.05. 3b: Interaction of age and feedback condition (Elaborative Feedback, EF; Content Feedback, CF; Positive Feedback, PF). Younger participants showed a stronger effect of feedback condition. Dotted lines represent 95 percentile confidence intervals.

Figure 4

Figure 4a. Positive Feedback (PF) and Elaborative Feedback (EF) were rated as more pleasant than Content Feedback (CF). 4b: EF was rated as more helpful than CF.

Figure 5

Figure 5a. Contrasting Elaborative Feedback (EF) with Content Feedback (CF), EF (warm colors) activated the vmPFC. CF (cool colors) bilaterally activated the dlPFC, IFG, AG, and MTG. 5b: Contrasting EF with Positive Feedback (PF), EF (warm colors) activated the left SMG, pSTG extending to pMTG, and vOT/FG. PF (cool colors) activated the precuneus/pCing. 5c: Contrasting CF with PF, CF (warm colors) activated the left STG, SMG, and bilateral IFG and vOT/FG. PF (cool colors) activated the vmPFC.

Figure 6

Figure 6a. Left: Interaction of EF – CF pseudoword presentation during the Feedback Phase with modulation by trial number. Right: Graphs represent parameter estimates for each trial number for an ROI in the left IFG sphere (shown on the sagittal slice, X = −32) and left caudate sphere (shown on the axial slice, Y = 80). 6b: Left: Interaction of EF - PF pseudoword presentation during the Feedback Phase with modulation by trial number. Right: Graphs represent parameter estimates for the ROI in the left IFG sphere (shown on the sagittal slice, X = −34) and left caudate sphere (shown on the axial slice, Y = 81). Coordinates are in Talairach space.