Loss anticipation and outcome during the Monetary Incentive Delay Task: a neuroimaging systematic review and meta-analysis

Background Reward seeking and avoidance of punishment are key motivational processes. Brain-imaging studies often use the Monetary Incentive Delay Task (MIDT) to evaluate motivational processes involved in maladaptive behavior. Although the bulk of research has been done on the MIDT reward events, little is known about the neural basis of avoidance of punishment. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis of brain activations during anticipation and receipt of monetary losses in healthy controls. Methods All functional neuro-imaging studies using the MIDT in healthy controls were retrieved using PubMed, Google Scholar & EMBASE databases. Functional neuro-imaging data was analyzed using the Seed-based d Mapping Software. Results Thirty-five studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising 699 healthy adults. In both anticipation and loss outcome phases, participants showed large and robust activations in the bilateral striatum, (anterior) insula, and anterior cingulate gyrus relatively to Loss > Neutral contrast. Although relatively similar activation patterns were observed during the two event types, they differed in the pattern of prefrontal activations: ventro-lateral prefrontal activations were observed during loss anticipation, while medial prefrontal activations were observed during loss receipt. Discussion Considering that previous meta-analyses highlighted activations in the medial prefrontal cortex/anterior cingulate cortex, the anterior insula and the ventral striatum, the current meta-analysis highlighted the potential specificity of the ventro-lateral prefrontal regions, the median cingulate cortex and the amygdala in the loss events. Future studies can rely on these latter results to examine the neural correlates of loss processing in psychiatric populations characterized by harm avoidance or insensitivity to punishment.


Rationale
3 Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.

1-2-3
Objectives 4 Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).

METHODS
Protocol and registration 5 Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
NA Eligibility criteria 6 Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.

3
Information sources 7 Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
3 Search 8 Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.

3
Study selection 9 State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
3 Data collection process 10 Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.

3
Data items 11 List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.

Risk of bias in individual studies
12 Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.

3-4
Synthesis of results 14 Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I 2 ) for each meta-analysis.

3-4
Section/topic # Checklist item Reported on page # Risk of bias across studies 15 Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).

RESULTS
Study selection 17 Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.

7-8-9
Study characteristics 18 For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.

6
Risk of bias within studies 19 Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item 12).

NA
Results of individual studies 20 For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot. For more information, visit: www.prisma-statement.org.
Page 2 of 2 relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
Limitations 25 Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).

12
Conclusions 26 Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.

FUNDING
Funding 27 Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.  (101) Anterior commissure (104) Note. BA = Brodmann Area; SDM = Seed-based d Mapping;

Supplementary
(a) Voxel probability threshold: p = 0.005 (b) Peak height threshold: z = 1 (c) Cluster extent threshold: 100 voxels. Regions with less than 10 voxels are not reported in the cluster breakdown.  (50) Note. BA = Brodmann Area; SDM = Seed-Based d Mapping (a) Voxel probability threshold: p = 0.005 (b) Peak height threshold: z = 1 (c) Cluster extent threshold: 100 voxels. Regions with less than 10 voxels are not reported in the cluster breakdown.