Interactions between methodological and interindividual variability: How Monetary Incentive Delay (MID) task contrast maps vary and impact associations with behavior

• Main Authors: Michael I. Demidenko, Alexander S. Weigard, Karthikeyan Ganesan, Hyesue Jang, Andrew Jahn, Edward D. Huntley, Daniel P. Keating
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Wiley 2021-05-01
• Series: Brain and Behavior
• Subjects: Approach; Avoidance; fMRI; Measurement; Monetary Incentive Delay; Prediction Error
• Online Access: https://doi.org/10.1002/brb3.2093

Abstract Introduction Phenomena related to reward responsiveness have been extensively studied in their associations with substance use and socioemotional functioning. One important task in this literature is the Monetary Incentive Delay (MID) task. By cueing and delivering performance‐contingent reward, the MID task has been demonstrated to elicit robust activation of neural circuits involved in different phases of reward responsiveness. However, systematic evaluations of common MID task contrasts have been limited to between‐study comparisons of group‐level activation maps, limiting their ability to directly evaluate how researchers’ choice of contrasts impacts conclusions about individual differences in reward responsiveness or brain‐behavior associations. Methods In a sample of 104 participants (Age Mean = 19.3, SD = 1.3), we evaluate similarities and differences between contrasts in: group‐ and individual‐level activation maps using Jaccard's similarity index, region of interest (ROI) mean signal intensities using Pearson's r, and associations between ROI mean signal intensity and psychological measures using Bayesian correlation. Results Our findings demonstrate more similarities than differences between win and loss cues during the anticipation contrast, dissimilarity between some win anticipation contrasts, an apparent deactivation effect in the outcome phase, likely stemming from the blood oxygen level‐dependent undershoot, and behavioral associations that are less robust than previously reported. Conclusion Consistent with recent empirical findings, this work has practical implications for helping researchers interpret prior MID studies and make more informed a priori decisions about how their contrast choices may modify results.