人們對於錯誤訊息處理經由自我覺察或外在回饋之管道，可藉由事件關聯電位分別測得ERN (error-related negativity) 及FRN (feedback-related negativity)。過去研究曾指出雙側作業(Flanker task)中錯誤所引發的ERN會受到以圖片呈現的短期情緒所調節，然而對於回饋誘發的FRN與個體情緒調節的關係則未曾被探討過。過去FRN的研究認為唯有當受試者所進行的作業為增強學習作業時，受試者對於回饋結果的預期狀態才能反映於FRN的反應強度。本研究利用兩個實驗分別採用非增強學習作業及增強學習作業，其中並以IAPS情緒圖片進行短期情緒的引發，在受試者於實驗中對其反應結果的不同預期狀態，探測受試者FRN受短期情緒調節的效果。 實驗一利用非增強學習作業，結果顯示FRN的強度可以反映受試者對於回饋結果的預期狀態，其中以非預期時FRN的強度為最大，預期時FRN的強度為最小；另外，正向情緒圖片對於FRN具有調節效果，正向情緒下FRN反應強度小於中性以及負向情緒下FRN反應強度。實驗二利用增強學習作業，前述的FRN強度反映受試者對回饋結果的預期效果，只有在實驗前半段的嘗試次中被觀測到，此效果未見於全部嘗試次納入分析；另外，實驗二中沒有觀察到情緒對於FRN的調節效果。 綜合而言，本研究發現受試者唯有持續處於學習的情形下，FRN才能反映受試者對於回饋結果的預期狀態，情緒對FRN的調節效果也僅於此情況下才能被觀測到。 / Error-related information in human can be processed via self-awareness and/or feedback given externally, which are measurable by the use of event-related potential (ERP) and termed error-related negativity (ERN) and feedback-related negativity (FRN) respectively. Previous studies showed that short-term affective stimuli would modulate the magnitude of ERN elicited by Flanker task. However, such modulation effect has not been tested on FRN. Furthermore, the magnitude of FRN is indicated to be related to the expectancy states toward feedback when the subject is undergoing a reinforcement learning task. Present study, thus, was designed to test the affective modulation effect on FRN in two separate tasks. In which, emotional pictures adopted from IAPS were used as the short-term affective stimuli, and different expectancy states in both non-reinforcement learning task (Experiment1) and reinforcement learning task (Experiment 2) were manipulated. In the results of Experiment 1, the magnitude of FRN was larger under the unexpected condition in comparing to the expected one. Modulation effect of short-term affective stimuli on FRN was obtained when positive emotion pictures were presented in non-reinforcement learning task, which FRN amplitude was significantly smaller in comparing to those measured after the presentation of neutral and negative pictures. In the results of Experiment 2, FRN elicited in the unexpected condition was only obtained from analyzing the dada collected in the first half of trails. Such effect was not confirmed when the data from all trials were analyzed. A lack of modulation effect of short-term affective stimuli on FRN appeared in Experiment 2. In conclusion, it is indicated that the expectancy depended FRN is most apparent when the subject is undergoing a continuous learning-demanded process. Meanwhile, short-term affective stimuli can modulate such FRN.

Damasio(1994)提出軀體標記假說（Somatic Marker Hypothesis）來解釋情緒如何影響行為決策，認為人們在決策前，與過去的情緒經驗關聯的生理反應會再現，幫助人們做出較好的決策判斷。並利用愛荷華賭博作業（Iowa Gambling Task）來模擬日常生活決策情境，並同時紀錄膚電反應(Skin conductance respons)，量測受試者決策前的預期膚電反應（Anticipatory SCR）和結果呈現後的回饋膚電反應(Feedback SCR)，加以佐證其神經生理機制。本研究將從三個方向進一步驗證其假說，分別是風險因素、生理證據和個別差異。在愛荷華賭博作業中，期望值負的牌也是高風險程度的牌，使結果無法清楚解釋是期望值或者風險程度造成的影響。而過去雖然有許多研究也使用膚電反應當做生理指標，但有許多相異的研究結果，並且較少研究利用事件關聯電位瞭解其中樞歷程。再者，過去相關研究發現個別差異的存在，但是缺乏一致的解釋。因此，本研究以修改版愛荷華賭博作業，控制期望值皆為零的狀況下，操弄風險程度，並且利用膚電反應和事件關聯電位當作周邊和和中樞的生理反應指標，探討受試者在單純風險情境，是否也會受到情緒軀體標記影響風險行為偏好，以及各項生理指標和風險行為偏好間的關聯，並瞭解不同風險偏好的受試者生理指標是否有所差異。結果發現，從行為上顯示有風險追逐和風險趨避兩組受試者，不同風險程度的牌損失回饋對受試者的歷程影響也不一樣，額葉的腦部回饋相關負波(Feedback-related Negativity，FRN)結果顯示，風險追逐的受試者對高低風險損失時的FRN沒有差異，風險趨避的受試者看到低風險損失時的FRN大於看到高風險損失時的FRN。此外，看到高風險酬賞比起低風險酬有較大回饋膚電反應的受試者，和看到高風險損失比起低風險損失有較小回饋膚電反應的受試者，接受高風險牌的比率也較高，其它生理變項對風險行為偏好沒有顯著的預測力。並且預期膚電反應並非過去研究認為單純扮演警訊或者誘因，而有更複雜的機制存在，受試者在接受非偏好的牌和拒絕偏好的牌前有較大的預期膚電反應。預期階段N170的結果顯示，受試者看到刺激之後會拒絕的N170會大於之後會接受的N170，顯示接受或拒絕兩種不同情境時受試者對刺激的處理歷程亦相異。 / Somatic Marker Hypothesis was proposed to explain the influence of emotion on decision making. To examine this hypothesis, Damasio and his colleagues designed the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) and found that the “anticipatory skin conductance responses (SCR)”, i.e. somatic markers, was elevated before selecting from bad decks to serve as alarms and it warned participants not to select “bad deck” which was negative expected value. However, there are three unsolved problem in these IGT researches: the risk factor, inconsistent physiological evidences, and individual differences. In the original IGT, the bad decks are also more risky and that confounds the interpretations of participants’ choice behaviors and related physiological evidences. There are inconsistent evidences of how the anticipatory SCR and feedback SCR related with choice behaviors. Moreover, there are little event-related potential IGT studies. To solve these issues, the primary aim of the present study is to clarify whether decision making is influenced by risk level even when all options have the same expected value. A modified IGT with high risk deck and low risk deck was used and the expected values of two decks were all zero. Moreover, the procedure was different from original IGT. Participants saw a deck with mark first and then decided to accept or reject this deck. Thus, the role of anticipatory SCR could be clarified more clearly. In addition to SCR, ERP was also recorded for further physiological evidences. To elaborately clarify individual differences of choice behavior and physiological evidences, participants would group to risk-seeking (i.e., accepting more high risk deck and rejecting more low risk deck) and risk-aversion (i.e., accepting more low risk deck and rejecting more high risk deck) according their choice behaviors. The result revealed that the participant who accepted more high risk deck, their reward SCR was higher from high risk deck than from low risk decks, and induced lower punishment SCR from high risk deck than from low risk decks. Moreover, the anticipatory SCR was higher both before they decided to reject the liked deck and before they decided to accept the disliked deck. The results of feedback-related negativity (FRN) from ERP data in frontal region showed that the magnitude of FRN was larger under the conflict punishment (the punishment from low risk decks) condition for risk-aversion participants. The results of N170 from ERP data showed that the magnitude of N170 was larger under the reject condition. These results suggest that the SMH could be explained not only with expected value but also with risk preference. In conclusion, the interpretation of anticipatory SCR by previous study was not completed, and it reflected not merely the negative feeling or positive feeling. This strong anticipatory emotion affects people to change the routine behavior about their risk preference, and there exist individual differences of choice behavior and physiological evidences.