Biological Psychology 161 (2021) 108060

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Biological Psychology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/biopsycho

Neurophysiological correlates of purchase decision-making

Ítalo Alí Diez a, b, Josep Marco-Pallarés a, b, *
a
Cognition and Brain Plasticity Unit, Bellvitge Biomedical Research Institute, Spain
b
Department of Cognition, Development and Educational Psychology, Institute of Neurosciences, University of Barcelona, Spain

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Economic decisions are characterized by their uncertainty and the lack of explicit feedback that indicates the
Purchase decision-making correctness of decisions at the time they are made. Nevertheless, very little is known about the neural mecha­
Event-related potentials nisms involved in this process. Our study sought to identify the neurophysiological correlates of purchase
Induced power analysis
decision-making in situations where the optimal purchase time is not known. EEG was recorded in 24 healthy
Theta oscillatory activity
Electroencephalography
subjects while they were performing a new experimental paradigm that simulates real economic decisions. At the
time of price presentation, we found an increase in the P3 Event-Related Potential and induced theta and alpha
oscillatory activity when participants chose to buy compared to when they decided to wait for a better price.
These results reflect the engagement of attention and executive function in purchase decision-making and might
help in the understanding of brain mechanisms underlying economic decisions in uncertain scenarios.

1. Introduction appears 300–600 ms after stimuli presentation. It has been related to

attentional processes (Polich & Kok, 1995; Polich, 2007), the probability
Most real-life decisions are made under uncertain conditions in and expectation of appearance of stimuli (Levi-Aharoni, Shriki, &
which individuals have to rely on the history of previous decisions and Tishby, 2020; Luck, 2014; Polich & Margala, 1997; Sur & Sinha, 2009),
learn from the consequences of their actions. Therefore, the processing the complexity of the experimental task (Polich, 2007) and relevance of
of both signals providing cues about future decisions and the feedback of contextual information (Levi-Aharoni et al., 2020). Evidence suggests
the performed actions are crucial, in order to adapt the behavior to the that increases in P3 amplitude arise from the evaluation of new stimuli
actual scenario and to be able to respond to its changes. Previous studies compared to the previous one stored in the working memory (Morgan,
have delineated the brain network involved in the decision-making Klein, Boehm, Shapiro, & Linden, 2008), the revision and adaptation of
processing, which comprises orbitofrontal cortex, prefrontal cortex, mental models of response (Wang, Zheng, Huang, & Sun, 2015), dura­
anterior cingulate cortex, amygdala, and ventral striatum/nucleus tion of stimulus evaluation (Twomey, Murphy, Kelly, & O’Connell,
accumbens areas, among many others (Delgado, Nystrom, Fissell, Noll, 2015) and the working memory load (Wang et al., 2015).
& Fiez, 2000; Delgado, 2007; Farrar, Mian, Budson, Moss, & Killiany, In addition, three main oscillatory components have been associated
2018; Si et al., 2019). In addition, EEG studies have described two main with some key aspects of this processing. In particular, different studies
Event-Related Potentials (ERP) related to decision-making, the N2 and have proposed a key role of the frontocentral theta oscillatory activity in
the P3 ERPs. The N2 is a frontocentral negative deflection that peaks the computation of the prediction error or surprise of the outcome of a
between 200 and 300 ms after stimulus presentation (Dickter & Kief­ decision (HajiHosseini, Rodríguez-Fornells, & Marco-Pallarés, 2012;
faber, 2014; Luck, 2014). This component has been found to present an Wang et al., 2016). In addition, theta plays an important role in cogni­
increased amplitude after neutral or negative cues (e.g. stimuli indi­ tive control (Clayton, Yeung, & Cohen Kadosh, 2015; Cox & Witten,
cating a potential monetary loss) compared to positive ones (Novak & 2019) and is modulated by the uncertainty of the context (Cavanagh,
Foti, 2015). It has been associated with increased cognitive control and Figueroa, Cohen, & Frank, 2012; Mas-Herrero & Marco-Pallarés, 2014).
with a discrepancy between expected and real situations (template All these previous results have led to the proposal that theta oscillatory
mismatch; Glazer, Kelley, Pornpattananangkul, Mittal, & Nusslock, activity might act as a common adaptive control mechanism in situa­
2018). On the other hand, the P3 component is a centroparietal ERP that tions with uncertainty about the outcome of responses and decisions

* Corresponding author at: Cognition and Brain Plasticity Group [Bellvitge Biomedical Research Institute- IDIBELL], L’Hospitalet de Llobregat, University of
Barcelona, Campus Bellvitge, Barcelona, 08097, Spain.
E-mail address: [email protected] (J. Marco-Pallarés).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2021.108060
Received 15 September 2020; Received in revised form 1 February 2021; Accepted 25 February 2021
Available online 27 February 2021
0301-0511/© 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Í. Alí Diez and J. Marco-Pallarés Biological Psychology 161 (2021) 108060

(Cavanagh & Frank, 2014; Cavanagh, Figueroa et al., 2012). consumer decisions, in order to explore the purchase decision-making
A second component that has been studied in decision-making ex­ process from individual variations attributable to neurophysiological
periments is alpha oscillatory activity. Previous research has related markers. For this, we designed an experiment in which participants had
increase in alpha power to selective inhibition (Noonan, Crittenden, to buy different products, where the main uncertainty was the correct
Jensen, & Stokes, 2018) and alpha suppression to facilitation of atten­ time to buy, omitting other additional information to control for the
tional systems as task preparation (Glazer et al., 2018). In reward-guided effect of previous experience and information available to the partici­
tasks, higher alpha suppression has been described in feedback antici­ pants in order to simulate what happens in purchases in virtual stores
pation (Bastiaansen, Böcker, Cluitmans, & Brunia, 1999; Pornpattana­ (Eroglu et al., 2001). Additionally, to achieve an appropriate simulation
nangkul & Nusslock, 2016) and been related to higher motivation of of said purchasing context, we generated ambiguous and uncertain price
participants to learn from feedbacks (Glazer et al., 2018; Pornpattana­ distributions, where the participants did not know the probabilities of
nangkul & Nusslock, 2016). Finally, beta oscillations have consistently success or failure in each decision or where the probabilities were not
been reported in response to unexpected or highly relevant positive defined (Huettel et al., 2006), with options that might dynamically
outcomes (Cohen, Elger, & Ranganath, 2007; Cunillera et al., 2012; change over time (Cavanagh, Figueroa et al., 2012). These paralleled
Marco-Pallarés, Münte, & Rodríguez-Fornells, 2015; Mas-Herrero, real-life situations in which the price of a product might change over
Ripollés, HajiHosseini, Rodríguez-Fornells, & Marco-Pallarés, 2015). time, i.e., becoming more expensive or cheaper in the future.
Different interpretations of this component have been proposed, Previous research has revealed some interesting insights into pur­
including, among others, it having a possible role in maintaining the chase decision-making. Preference for a product over another is
“status quo” (Engel & Fries, 2010), it being a signal driving motivational expressed by a reduction in the N200 event-related potential component
value to the reward network (Marco-Pallarés et al., 2015) or it acting as and weaker theta band power in frontal areas (Telpaz, Webb, & Levy,
a mechanisms for the endogenous reactivation of latent cortical repre­ 2015). Additionally, evidence suggests the existence of a left frontal
sentation (Spitzer & Haegens, 2017). asymmetry that predicts purchase decisions when the price shown is
One of the most common decisions we have to face in our daily life is below the normal one, even when the normal one is an implicit and
to decide what to buy and when to do it. The economic decision process subjective reference (Ravaja, Somervuori, & Salminen, 2013), and it is
entails assigning values to the available options before deciding (Huet­ explained by power increases in alpha band oscillations (Arieli & Berns,
tel, Stowe, Gordon, Warner, & Platt, 2006; Platt & Padoa-Schioppa, 2010). Braeutigam, Rose, Swithenby, and Ambler (2004), also, found
2009; Rangel, Camerer, & Montague, 2008) and choosing the price that subjects’ choices of consumer goods were associated with power
and the moment to buy the product. This value is highly subjective and increases in alpha and gamma bands. Importantly, most of the
in many cases has an emotional nature, fulfilling real or perceived above-mentioned studies have focused on post-decision elements related
utilities, beliefs or satisfaction of needs which might be driven by mainly to marketing, with the main objective being improvement of
different factors such as, e.g., the symbolic value of the product or the sales strategies and consumers’ preferences of a product over another
state of the buyer (Burnett & Lunsford, 1994). Most of the psychology (Arieli & Berns, 2010). However, as stated above, none of these studies
literature on this topic has been devoted to explore the attitudinal (see, have looked at one of the most common sources of uncertainty: when to
e.g. Denegri et al., 2012; Quintanilla & Luna-Arocas, 1999; Luna-Arocas buy. In the present paper, we aimed to study the neurophysiological
and Fierres, 1998) and personality traits (Boyce, Czajkowski, & Hanley, correlates of purchase decision-making in scenarios with temporal un­
2019; Gambetti & Giusberti, 2019; Huettel et al., 2006) influencing such certainty using the new PDMt experimental paradigm. In light of prior
decisions. In addition, several studies have described the impact of research, we hypothesized that the decision to buy a product or decide to
multiple factors on purchasing decisions, including previous experience wait for a new offer would lead to differences in the ERPs components
with the product or brand (Esch et al., 2012; Jiménez & Mendoza, 2013; elicited during price presentation. We also expected an increase in
Ling, Chai, & Piew, 2010), advertising image, logo and typography induced oscillatory activity in theta, alpha and beta frequency bands
(Dong & Gleim, 2018; Doyle & Bottomley, 2004), and the place of when participants decided to buy a product compared with when the
purchase (virtual or traditional store; Eroglu, Machleit, & Davis, 2001). decision was to wait for another offer.
However, much less research has been devoted to studying one of the
most critical factors in purchase decision-making: when to buy. Hence, 2. Materials and methods
in the process of deciding whether to buy a product, the actual price and
its prospects of being higher or lower in the future are crucial. Never­ 2.1. Participants
theless, the study of such decisions is not trivial because, although they
have some similarities with the traditional paradigms used in the study Twenty-four healthy young adults participated in the experiment (8
of decision-making, they also present some important particularities. men, mean age 22.13 ± 4.23 (S.D)) for monetary compensation. Sub­
Therefore, in contrast to the former, in which a clear structure is pre­ jects received €25 for their participation plus a bonus depending on their
sented (e.g., target-response-feedback about the consequence of the performance in the task (€1 for every 50 coins saved; see above). Written
action), in purchase decision-making the feedback about the correctness consent was obtained prior to the experiment. The local ethical com­
of the decision is fuzzy. For example, when we decide to buy a flight mittee approved the experiment.
ticket on an internet web page after days of checking the variation of the
prices for the same flight, the feedback of the decision is ambiguous as it 2.2. Design
might be considered good or bad only on the basis of previous prices and
the prospects of the future. In this situation, for example, the presenta­ We used a new experimental paradigm, the Purchase Decision-
tion of the price would be both a cue and, in the case of a buy, a feedback Making task (PDMt), where participants had to buy three unknown
of the consequence of the action. In addition, previous non-bought pri­ products, in 20 series, with a maximum of 10 offers (10 days in the cover
ces act as the feedback for a non-performed action (Kahneman, 2009; of the experiment) to decide. Participants were told that they had to
Karimi, Papamichail, & Holland, 2015). These situations are, therefore, assume the position of a maintenance manager of a boat company in
challenging to be translated to experimental paradigms and have been Alaska where they had to buy the three necessary products (spare parts,
scarcely explored in the literature. In the present paper we propose a oil, and tools) to keep the company running. In each series, participants
new experimental paradigm, the Purchase Decision-Making under had a maximum budget of 1,000 coins to buy the three products
temporal uncertainty task (PDMt) in which we simulated purchase de­ required, with the instruction: “try to save as much as possible in each
cisions in which there was uncertainty about the correct moment to buy sequence”, as a way to standardize the levels of motivation and final goal
a product. PDMt emerges as an experimental tool for the study of of the task.

2
Í. Alí Diez and J. Marco-Pallarés Biological Psychology 161 (2021) 108060

Each trial consisted of the purchase of the three products, shown 2.3. Electrophysiological recording
sequentially in the same order. First, the participant saw the picture of
the first product and the number of the trial (1–20). Then, the infor­ EEG was recorded from the scalp (0.01 Hz high-pass filter with a
mation about the day (e.g., Day 1) and the price appeared on the screen. notch filter at 50 Hz; 250 Hz sampling rate) using a BrainAmp amplifier
Participants could decide to buy at that price or to not buy and wait for with tin electrodes mounted on an Easycap (Brain Products©), at 32
the next price by pressing a corresponding button. If they decided to standard positions (Fp1/2, AFz (Gnd), Fz, F3/4, F7/8, FCz, FC1/2, FC5/
wait, the next day (e.g., Day 2) another price appeared on the screen and 6, Cz, C3/4, T7/8, CP1/2, CP5/6, Pz, P3/4, P7/8, L/R Mastoids, O1/2).
the participant had to decide again. In case of purchase, the image of the The mean of the activity of the two mastoid (L/R) processes was used as
next product and the number of trials appeared on the screen and the re-reference of biosignals (off-line). Additionally, vertical eye move­
procedure continued with Day 1 and the price for the product. If the ments were monitored with an electrode at the infraorbital ridge of the
participant waited until the last day (10), the product was bought at the right eye. All electrode impedances were kept below 5kΩ.
price indicated on this day and the new product appeared. When all
three products were bought, the total final price was shown, and the next 2.4. Data analysis
trial started with the first product (see Fig. 1A).
Unknown to the participants, each product had a particular price Behavioral results were analyzed using repeated measures ANOVA
distribution which was defined a priori (Huettel et al., 2006). The first analyses. First, to identify possible differences in participants’ choices
product had a mean fixed value every day; the second product presented throughout the task, a repeated-measures ANOVA was computed for two
two minima on days 3 and 9 and a maximum on day 6. Finally, the third within factors: product (distribution 1, 2, 3), and purchase block (block
product had a minimum on day 5. In addition, each day had an SD that 1: from purchase 1–10; block 2: from purchase 11–20). The offer of the
increased linearly, from 10 coins on the first day, to 55 on the last day purchase decision was considered a dependent variable. The second
(see Fig. 1B). The different distributions allowed the creation of different analysis was focused on measuring the possible differences in the
uncertainty scenarios for the different products. Given the difficulty of response time of each decision during the experiment. For that, a
the task, and in order to facilitate the learning of the hidden distribution repeated-measures ANOVA was computed for three within factors:
of the prices, the products were presented in the same order throughout product (distribution 1, 2, 3), purchase block (from purchase 1–10; from
the experiment. purchase 11–20), and type of decision (wait or buy). The JASP software

Fig. 1. A. Task structure of the Purchase Decision-Making Task. Participants had to buy three different products in each trial. Each product could be bought on 10
“days”. Each day a price was presented, and participants had to decide whether to buy the product at this price or to wait for the next day and price. If the participant
waited, a new day and price appeared, for a maximum of 10 days, upon which the product was acquired at the price on the last day. When the product was bought,
the new product appeared, and the procedure started again until the three products were acquired. B. Distribution of prices for the three products with the different
“days” (offer). Note the increase in the SD of the price with the offer.

3
Í. Alí Diez and J. Marco-Pallarés Biological Psychology 161 (2021) 108060

was used for the statistical analysis (JASP Team, 2020). effect of the multiple comparisons (Gramfort et al., 2014, 2013; Maris &
Oostenveld, 2007) and obtain the time range in which the two condi­
2.4.1. Event-related brain potentials tions were significantly different. The threshold used for the cluster
EEG was low-pass filtered at 40 Hz offline using EEGLab 2019 under formation was automatically computed based on the F-distribution of
MATLAB (MathWorks, 2019). Epochs were extracted from -2000 ms the dataset (Maris & Oostenveld, 2007); the number of permutations
before the stimuli to 2000 ms after it. Two conditions were studied: the was 1000. In addition, repeated-measures ANOVA was computed for
stimuli showing the price at which the participant bought the product three within factors: condition (wait or buy), laterality (left, middle,
(buy condition), and the previous offer in which participant did not buy right) and anterior-posterior (frontal, central, and parietal) in the N2
(wait condition). In addition, in order to have the same number of and P3 ERPs time ranges.
stimuli for the two conditions, we did not analyze those offers in which
participants bought in the first day. Therefore, the number of trials used 2.4.2. Time-frequency analysis
for the two conditions was the same for each participant (51.5 ± 7.2 In order to find the induced time-frequency activity, we first sub­
trials). tracted the ERP for each condition from each single trial for each con­
Independent Component Analysis (ICA) was applied to the data and dition from − 2000 ms to 2000 ms and then we convoluted them using a
those components reflecting artifacts were removed from the data (Bell complex Morlet wavelet (Herrmann, Senkowski, & Röttger, 2004; Tal­
& Sejnowski, 1995; Delorme, Palmer, Onton, Oostenveld, & Makeig, lon-Baudry, Bertrand, Delpuech, & Pernier, 1997) from 1 Hz to 30 Hz at
2012; Lee, Girolami, & Sejnowski, 1999). Epochs exceeding ±100 μV 1 Hz steps. The mean change of power respect baseline was obtained for
were also rejected from further analysis. different electrodes (Fz, F3/4, Cz, C3/4, Pz, P3/4) and a
Event-Related Potentials were extracted from -200 ms (baseline) to repeated-measures ANOVA was computed for three within factors:
1000 ms after the presentation of the price for each epoch. A 20 Hz low- condition (wait or buy), laterality (left, middle, right) and
pass filter was applied and then a cluster-based spatiotemporal permu­ anterior-posterior (frontal, central, and parietal).
tation test on full sensor data was performed between the conditions
(Gramfort et al., 2013; Maris & Oostenveld, 2007) using the MNE
package (Gramfort et al., 2014) under Python (Dayley, 2006) in the
Spyder environment (Raybaut, 2017), in order to control the possible

Fig. 2. A. Average of offer of purchase for each product and purchase block. Error bars indicate the standard error of the mean B. Average of response time in each
product and purchase block during the task.

4
Í. Alí Diez and J. Marco-Pallarés Biological Psychology 161 (2021) 108060

3. Results < 0.001; η2p = 0.562), with the first block being 0.248 ± 0.056 faster
than the last one (t(21) = 4.395; pbonf < 0.001). In addition, results
3.1. Behavioral results showed a significant interaction between purchase block and type of
decision (F(1,17) = 6.489; p = 0.021; η2p = 0.276), with significant post-
The general results revealed that 3.14 % of purchase decisions were
hoc effect for the first block in the wait condition, which was 0.349 ±
made when the price variation was 0, 12.06 % were made when prices
0.074 s faster than the decision to buy the product (t(19) = 4.752; pbonf <
increased (49 % of them corresponded to forced purchases in trial 10),
0.001), and significant faster decision in buy condition in the second
and 84.80 % of purchases were made when prices decreased. Fig. 2A
block (0.365 ± 0.073) compared to the first one (t(19) = 5.016; pbonf <
shows the mean of the offer when participants decided to purchase the
0.001).
products in each distribution, in the first (purchase 1–10) and second
A significant interaction between product and purchase block was
(purchase 11–20) half of the experimental paradigm. Repeated mea­
sures ANOVA revealed the existence of significant differences among also found (F(2,34) = 3.306; p = 0.049; η2p = 0.163) with the first block
products (F(2,44) = 15.784, p < 0.001, η2p = 0.418) and interaction being 0.418 ± 0.087 slower than the second block in product 2 (t(17) =
4.799; pbonf < 0.001). Finally, the significant interaction of product by
between product and block of purchases (F(2,44) = 8.983, p < 0.001, η2p
purchase block and type of decision (F(2,34) = 3.695; p = 0.035; η2p =
= 0.290), but no significant effect of purchase block (F(1,22) = 0.828, p
0.179) was driven by product 2, with the buy decision in first block
= 0.373, η2p = 0.036). Therefore, the decisions of participants were
being 0.630 ± 0.119 slower than the decision to wait (t(11) = 5.278;
dependent on the different price distributions and consistent throughout
pbonf < 0.001).
the experiment. Post-hoc analysis using Bonferroni correction showed
that purchases of product 2 were made 1.793 ± 0.320 (SE) offers before
product 1 (t(20) = 5.604, pbonf < 0.001) and 1.011 ± 0.320 offers before 3.2. Event-related brain potentials
product 3 (t(20) = 3.158, pbonf = 0.009). In addition, purchases in the
first block of product 1 were bought 0.952 ± 0.260 offers later than in Results of the ERP analyses showed significant differences in the
the last block (t(17) = 3.660, pbonf = 0.008). amplitude of the ERP components for both conditions from 256 to 1000
Fig. 2B shows the mean of the reaction time in each decision, ms after stimuli presentation, according to the cluster permutation
product, and purchase block of the experimental paradigm. The rmA­ analysis (Fig. 3A).
NOVA of response time revealed the existence of significant differences In addition, we also analyzed the two main ERPs showing significant
in the type of decision (wait or buy, F(1,17) = 16.384; p < 0.001; η2p = differences between the buy and wait conditions. Therefore, Fig. 3B
shows that the difference between conditions at the N2 component
0.491). Post-hoc tests showed that the decision to wait was made 0.232
(200− 300 ms) was higher in frontocentral electrodes, while in the P3
± 0.057 s faster than the decision to buy (t(21) = 4.048; pbonf < 0.001). In
component (300− 600 ms) difference between conditions was maximal
addition, purchase block factor was also significant (F(1,17) = 19.320; p
at centro-parietal electrodes (Fig. 3B).

Fig. 3. A. ERP for Fz and Pz electrodes for the 2 conditions: buy (buy the product at price showed; line in red) and wait (wait for another offer; line in blue), including
temporal range where differences are statically significant at cluster level; B. Topographical representation by condition and difference in N2 (200 to 300 ms) and P3
(300 to 600 ms) components.

5
Í. Alí Diez and J. Marco-Pallarés Biological Psychology 161 (2021) 108060

Repeated measures ANOVA in the N2 component (200− 300 ms), and a decrease of induced beta power in a time range between 200 and
revealed significant effect of condition (F(1,23) = 20.057; p < 0.001; η2p 500 ms. The buy condition showed a power increase in the theta and
= 0.466) and laterality. In addition, rm-ANOVA also revealed significant alpha bands around 200 ms, and a decrease in power induced in the beta
interaction between condition and anterior-posterior factor (F(2,46) = band after 400 ms. Difference between these two conditions revealed
5.308; p = 0.008; η2p = 0.187), and interaction between condition and three main differences located at the theta (4 Hz–8 Hz), low alpha (8
Hz–10 Hz), and beta bands (16 Hz–26 Hz).
laterality factor (F(2,46) = 6.460; p = 0.003; η2p = 0.219). Post-hoc test
rmANOVA in the theta band (4− 8 Hz, 300− 500 ms), revealed a
showed that N2 amplitude increased 1.322 ± 0.295 in buy condition significant condition effect (0.119 ± 0.056 (SEM); F(1,23) = 4.472; p =
compared to the wait decision (t(22) = 4.479; pbonf < 0.001), in partic­
0.046; η2p = 0.163), and no significant interaction between condition and
ular, in frontal (1.560 ± 0.328) and central (1.549 ± 0.328) areas (t(18)
position factors (F < 1.3; p > 0.05; η2p < 0.050). Post-hoc tests showed
> 4.72; pbonf < 0.001).
In the P3 component (300− 600 ms), rm-ANOVA revealed significant that the oscillatory activity in theta band increased 0.119 ± 0.056 in buy
condition than in decision to wait (t(21) = 2.115; pbonf = 0.046).
effects of condition (F(1,23) = 70.317; p < 0.001; η2p = 0.754), anterior-
In the alpha band (8− 10 Hz, 200− 400 ms), a significant condition
posterior (F(2,46) = 50.711; p < 0.001; η2p = 0.688) and laterality (F
effect (F(1,23) = 6.202; p = 0.020; η2p = 0.212) and an interaction be­
(2,46) = 7.607; p = 0.001; η2p = 0.754) factors. In addition, significant
tween condition and anterior-posterior factor (F(2,46) = 5.423; p =
interaction between condition and anterior-posterior factor (F(2,46) = 0.008; η2p = 0.191). Post hoc test revealed a higher induced power in the
5.641; p = 0.006; η2p = 0.197), and condition and laterality factor (F
buy compared to wait condition (0.094 ± 0.038; t(21) = 2.490; pbonf =
(2,46) = 1.112; p < 0.001; η2p = 0.363) were found. Post-hoc analyses 0.020), in particular, in frontal areas (0.171 ± 0.045; t(17) = 3.828; pbonf
revealed that the amplitude of the buy condition increased 3.619 ± = 0.006).
0.432 compared to wait condition (t(22) = 8.386; pbonf < 0.001). Activity Finally, beta band analysis showed no significant condition effect (F
increase in the buy condition was significantly higher in central (4.236 (1,23) = 0.959; p > 0.05; η2p = 0.040), nor significant interaction be­
± 0.556; t(18) = 7.480; pbonf < 0.001) and parietal (5.095 ± 0.552; t(18)
tween condition and the position factors (F < 1.2; p > 0.05; η2p < 0.049).
= 7.996; pbonf < 0.001) areas compared to the frontal ones.
4. Discussion
3.3. Time-frequency analysis
The goal of the present study was to identify the neurophysiological
Fig. 4 shows the induced power analyses for frequencies 1 Hz to 30 markers of purchase decision-making in humans. To this end, we
Hz for the two conditions and their differences. Results showed that the analyzed the differences in ERPs components and response-induced
wait condition presented an increase in the theta band around 200 ms

Fig. 4. Time-frequency induced power analyses

for both conditions. In the upper-left, graphical
representation of induced power for wait con­
dition (wait for another offer), upper-right
figure for buy condition (buy the product at
price showed). The bottom figures represent
differences between buy and wait conditions in
induced oscillatory activity (buy – wait condi­
tions) and the topographical representation for
the difference between conditions in the time-
frequency ranges indicated by the rectangular
figures.

6
Í. Alí Diez and J. Marco-Pallarés Biological Psychology 161 (2021) 108060

oscillation activity between two possible conditions when people were response and buying a novel response requiring a switch. Previous
making purchasing decisions (buy or wait for next offer) using a new studies have indeed described increased theta activation to switching
experimental paradigm designed for this study, the Purchase Decision- (Cooper et al., 2019) and novel events (Marco-Pallarés et al., 2010;
Making task (PDMt). Cavanagh, Zambrano-Vazquez, & Allen, 2012).
Our results showed significant differences between the buy and wait In addition, we also found that the decision to buy significantly
conditions both in the N2 and P3 ERPs. In the case of N2, buy conditions increased the oscillatory activity in the alpha band, which is consistent
showed a reduction in the N2 component, with the difference between with results reported by Ravaja et al. (2013) and Braeutigam et al.
the two conditions presenting a clear frontocentral topography. This (2004), who proposed that prices and product preferences was
component has been consistently described in cues indicating a future expressed by increases in alpha activity. Previous studies have shown
potential reward of punishment, being larger in negative and neutral that highly complex trials during economic decision-making experi­
conditions compared to positive ones (Glazer et al., 2018). Traditionally, ments (which would correspond to the buy condition in the current
the frontocentral N2 has been associated with increased cognitive con­ experiment) present increases in the alpha band (Rappel et al., 2020),
trol, being larger, for example, in incongruent trials in flanker tasks suggesting a relation between alpha oscillations and impulse control and
(Bartholow et al., 2005) or in no-go conditions compared to go trials in valence processing (Rossi, Gunduz, & Okun, 2015). However, contrary
go/no-go (Bruin & Wijers, 2002) and stop signals (Band, Ridderinkhof, to our hypothesis, we did not find differences in the beta band in the buy
& van der Molen, 2003) tasks. Given that in the present experiment the compared to the wait condition. This oscillatory activity has been pre­
goal of the participants was to buy at the best price, the increase in the viously shown to be associated with unexpected or highly relevant
N2 ERP would indicate higher conflict in the wait trials compared to the positive information (Cunillera et al., 2012; HajiHosseini et al., 2012;
buy ones, even when the number of trials of the former was higher than Marco-Pallarés et al., 2015) and related to the activity of the ventral
the latter. striatum and hippocampus (Andreou et al., 2017; Mas-Herrero et al.,
We found that both decisions substantially increased the amplitude 2015).
of the P3 component in the pre-decision time but also that different One of the strengths of the current study is the proposal of a new
conditions led to different amplitudes of this component and in the experimental approach to study the purchase decision process. Previous
posterior time of the event-related potential. In this sense, our findings studies have described such decisions as a multifactorial cognitive pro­
reaffirm the idea that the P3 component plays a key role in the decision- cess that involve several cortical and subcortical networks, which stand
making process (Rohrbaugh, Donchin, & Eriksen, 1974), where differ­ out as the most important structures related to the value-related process
ences in amplitude of P3 for both conditions can be understood as of goods and the preferences of the prefrontal cortex and some of its
consequence of the different cognitive process involved after those de­ substructures (Arieli & Berns, 2010; Kable & Glimcher, 2009; Pearson,
cisions. Previous studies suggest that increases in P3 amplitudes arise Watson, & Platt, 2014; Telpaz et al., 2015). Additionally, studies have
from the evaluation of new stimuli compared to the previous one stored shown that the purchase decision-making process has important features
in the working memory (Morgan et al., 2008), and the revision and that differentiate it from traditional decision-making paradigms (Kah­
adaptation of mental models of response (Wang et al., 2015). According neman, 2009; Karimi et al., 2015). It can be characterized as a decision
to some authors, the amplitude of this component would also reflect the process in which the feedback on the accuracy of a decision is neither
duration of stimulus evaluation processes (Twomey et al., 2015). clear nor explicit, but it is the consequences and information derived
Indeed, buy decisions took a longer time than wait decisions, and this from previous decisions that can act as feedback. Based on this, our
could be reflected in higher amplitude in the P3 ERP. Importantly, one of experimental paradigm included different products and price distribu­
the main consistent results of the P3 component is its sensitivity to tions associated with offers, in order to detect possible differences in the
probability. Previous studies have consistently reported increased P3 decisions in different scenarios; in other words, the differences in the
amplitude when the probability of the target stimuli is smaller in oddball subjective values given by the participants (Hayden, 2018; Kahneman &
paradigms (Duncan-Johnson & Donchin, 1977; Picton, 1992). In the Tversky, 1984; Kahneman, 2009). However, it is well known that there
present experiment, wait decisions were more frequent than buy ones. exists high variability in the purchase decision-making process that is
Therefore, the increased P3 amplitude in buy condition compared to explained by individual differences in personality traits (Boyce et al.,
wait ones could also be related to the relative low probability of buy 2019; Gambetti & Giusberti, 2019; Huettel et al., 2006) and attitudes
conditions compared to wait ones. Additionally, it has also been pro­ towards consumption (Denegri et al., 2012; Luna -Arocas, 2002; Quin­
posed that P3 shows higher amplitude for those trials presenting higher tanilla & Luna-Arocas, 1999), among many others. In addition, there
motivational significance (Nieuwenhuis, Aston-Jones, & Cohen, 2005). might exist interactions between individual differences and different
Consequently, the increased P3 for buy trials could also be associated to price distributions. Therefore, new designs including other price distri­
the higher significance and utility of these trials as the goal of the task butions and/or groups of participants with different consumer profiles
was to buy at the best possible price and, therefore, those prices at which might help in better understanding the neural correlates of purchase
people bought would have greater utility and emotional impact than the decision-making. In addition, future studies could also explore the
most frequent wait trials (Nieuwenhuis et al., 2005). possibility of predicting buying or non-buying decisions using single
Another important result of the current experiment is the increase in trial analysis of the studied neurophysiological components using mixed
the theta and alpha oscillatory activities in the buy condition compared models or hierarchical lineal models.
to the wait one. Evidence suggests that theta band is modulated by levels Importantly, a limitation of the present study is that some critical
of uncertainty in decision-making contexts (Jocham, Neumann, Klein, aspects when making an economic decision are not controlled in the
Danielmeier, & Ullsperger, 2009; Mas-Herrero & Marco-Pallarés, 2014; present experiment. Indeed, the current experimental paradigm allows
Mas-Herrero, Sescousse, Cools, & Marco-Pallarés, 2019), as well as in the description of the basic decision of buying or waiting, but does not
conflict detection and resolution (Akam & Kullmann, 2012; Clayton control for other important elements such as risk, uncertainty or ex­
et al., 2015; Cohen & Donner, 2013; Cunillera et al., 2012; Donner & pected value among others, which has shown to play a role in purchase
Siegel, 2011). In our experiment, buy trials presented a greater conflict decision-making (Huettel et al., 2006; Volz, Schubotz, & Von Cramon,
than wait trials as they supposed the end of the decision process with no 2005). Future studies controlling these parameters are needed to
option to prospect for future and better prices. This result was also re­ determine how these different factors modulate the described neuro­
flected by the larger RT in the buy condition compared to the wait one. physiological responses associated with purchase decision-making.
In addition, it is important to note that, as stated above, in our experi­
mental design participants chose the wait option more often than the
buy one. Therefore, waiting could be considered as the habitual

7
Í. Alí Diez and J. Marco-Pallarés Biological Psychology 161 (2021) 108060

Declaration of Competing Interest Cunillera, T., Fuentemilla, L., Periañez, J., Marco-Pallarès, J., Krämer, U. M., Càmara, E.,
… Antoni, R. F. (2012). Brain oscillatory activity associated with task switching and
feedback processing. Cognitive, Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience, 12(1), 16–33.
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-011-0075-5
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence Dayley, B. (2006). Python phrasebook (First edit.). United States of America: Sams
the work reported in this paper. Publishing.
Delgado, M. R. (2007). Reward-related responses in the human striatum. Annals of the
New York Academy of Sciences, 1104, 70–88. https://doi.org/10.1196/
Acknowledgements annals.1390.002
Delgado, M. R., Nystrom, L. E., Fissell, C., Noll, D. C., & Fiez, J. A. (2000). Tracking the
hemodynamic responses to reward and punishment in the striatum. Journal of
The present project has been funded by the European Regional Neurophysiology, 84(6), 3072–3077.
Development Fund (ERDF) and the Spanish Ministry of Science, Inno­ Delorme, A., Palmer, J., Onton, J., Oostenveld, R., & Makeig, S. (2012). Independent EEG
vation and Universities (PGC2018-098032-B-I00), and ICREA Academia sources are dipolar. PloS One, 7(2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.
pone.0030135
2018 program to JMP. IA is supported by Chilean government through Denegri, M., Alí, Í., Novoa, M., Rodríguez, C., Del Valle, C., González, Y., … Sepúlveda, J.
Becas-Chile fellowship program by the National Agency for Research (2012). Relations between scales of attitudes toward money and purchase: A study in
and Development (ANID), reference number 2015-72160105. pedagogy students of Chile. Interamerican Journal of Psychology, 46(2), 229–238.
Retrieved from http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=28425280004.
Dickter, C., & Kieffaber, P. (2014). In M. Carmichael (Ed.), EEG methods for the
References psychological sciences (First edit.). London, England: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Dong, R., & Gleim, M. R. (2018). High or low: The impact of brand logo location on
Akam, T. E., & Kullmann, D. M. (2012). Efficient “Communication through coherence” consumers product perceptions. Food Quality and Preference, 69(October 2017),
requires oscillations structured to minimize interference between signals. PLoS 28–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2018.05.003
Computational Biology, 8(11), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002760 Donner, T. H., & Siegel, M. (2011). A framework for local cortical oscillation patterns.
Andreou, C., Frielinghaus, H., Rauh, J., Mußmann, M., Vauth, S., Braun, P., … Mulert, C. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(5), 191–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
(2017). Theta and high-beta networks for feedback processing: A simultaneous EEG- tics.2011.03.007
fMRI study in healthy male subjects. Translational Psychiatry, 7(1), e1016–1018. Doyle, J. R., & Bottomley, P. A. (2004). Font appropriateness and brand choice. Journal of
https://doi.org/10.1038/tp.2016.287 Business Research, 57(8), 873–880. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(02)00487-
Arieli, D., & Berns, G. S. (2010). Neuromarketing: The hope and hype of neuroimaging in 3
business. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11(4), 284–292. https://doi.org/10.1038/ Duncan-Johnson, C. C., & Donchin, E. (1977). On quantifying surprise: The variation of
nrn2795 event-related potentials with subjective probability. Psychophysiology, 14(5),
Band, G. P. H., Ridderinkhof, K. R., & van der Molen, M. W. (2003). Speed-accuracy 456–467. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.1977.tb01312.x
modulation in case of conflict: The roles of activation and inhibition. Psychological Engel, A. K., & Fries, P. (2010). Beta-band oscillations-signalling the status quo? Current
Research, 67(4), 266–279. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-002-0127-0 Opinion in Neurobiology, 20(2), 156–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Bartholow, B. D., Pearson, M. A., Dickter, C. L., Sher, K. J., Fabiani, M., & Gratton, G. conb.2010.02.015
(2005). Strategic control and medial frontal negativity: Beyond errors and response Eroglu, S. A., Machleit, K. A., & Davis, L. M. (2001). Atmospheric qualities of online
conflict. Psychophysiology, 42(1), 33–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469- retailing. Journal of Business Research, 54(2), 177–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/
8986.2005.00258.x S0148-2963(99)00087-9
Bastiaansen, M. C. M., Böcker, K. B. E., Cluitmans, P. J. M., & Brunia, C. H. M. (1999). Esch, F. R., Möll, T., Schmitt, B., Elger, C. E., Neuhaus, C., & Weber, B. (2012). Brands on
Event-related desynchronization related to the anticipation of a stimulus providing the brain: Do consumers use declarative information or experienced emotions to
knowledge of results. Clinical Neurophysiology, 110(2), 250–260. https://doi.org/ evaluate brands? Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(1), 75–85. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0013-4694(98)00122-9 10.1016/j.jcps.2010.08.004
Bell, A. J., & Sejnowski, T. J. (1995). Information-maximization approach to blind Farrar, D. C., Mian, A. Z., Budson, A. E., Moss, M. B., & Killiany, R. J. (2018). Functional
separation and blind deconvolution. Neural Computation, 7, 1129–1159. https://doi. brain networks involved in decision-making under certain and uncertain conditions.
org/10.1162/neco.1995.7.6.1129 Neuroradiology, 60(1), 61–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00234-017-1949-1
Boyce, C., Czajkowski, M., & Hanley, N. (2019). Personality and economic choices. Gambetti, E., & Giusberti, F. (2019). Personality, decision-making styles and
Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 94, 82–100. https://doi.org/ investments. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 80, 14–24. https://
10.1016/j.jeem.2018.12.004 doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2019.03.002
Braeutigam, S., Rose, S. P. R., Swithenby, S. J., & Ambler, T. (2004). The distributed Glazer, J. E., Kelley, N. J., Pornpattananangkul, N., Mittal, V. A., & Nusslock, R. (2018).
neuronal systems supporting choice-making in real-life situations: Differences Beyond the FRN: Broadening the time-course of EEG and ERP components
between men and women when choosing groceries detected using implicated in reward processing. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 132
magnetoencephalography. The European Journal of Neuroscience, 20(1), 293–302. (January), 184–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2018.02.002
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-9568.2004.03467.x Gramfort, A., Luessi, M., Larson, E., Engemann, D. A., Strohmeier, D., Brodbeck, C., …
Bruin, K., & Wijers, A. (2002). Inhibition, response mode, and stimulus probability: A Hämäläinen, M. (2013). MEG and EEG data analysis with MNE-Python. Frontiers in
comparative event-related potential study. Clinical Neurophysiology, 113(7), Neuroscience, 7, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2013.00267
1172–1182. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1388-2457(02)00141-4 Gramfort, A., Luessi, M., Larson, E., Engemann, D. A., Strohmeier, D., Brodbeck, C., …
Burnett, M. S., & Lunsford, D. A. (1994). Conceptualizing guilt in the consumer decision- Hämäläinen, M. S. (2014). MNE software for processing MEG and EEG data.
making process. The Journal of Consumer Marketing, 11(3), 33–43. https://doi.org/ NeuroImage, 86(1), 446–460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.10.027
10.1108/07363769410065454 HajiHosseini, A., Rodríguez-Fornells, A., & Marco-Pallarés, J. (2012). The role of beta-
Cavanagh, J., & Frank, M. J. (2014). Frontal theta as a mechanism for cognitive control. gamma oscillations in unexpected rewards processing. NeuroImage, 60(3),
Trends in Cognitive Science, 18(8), 414–421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. 1678–1685. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.01.125
tics.2014.04.012 Hayden, B. Y. (2018). Economic choice: The foraging perspective. Current Opinion in
Cavanagh, J., Figueroa, C. M., Cohen, M. X., & Frank, M. J. (2012). Frontal theta reflects Behavioral Sciences, 24, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2017.12.002
uncertainty and unexpectedness during exploration and exploitation. Cerebral Herrmann, C. S., Senkowski, D., & Röttger, S. (2004). Phase-locking and amplitude
Cortex, 22(11), 2575–2586. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhr332 modulations of EEG alpha: Two measures reflect different cognitive processes in a
Cavanagh, J., Zambrano-Vazquez, L., & Allen, J. J. B. (2012). Theta lingua franca: A working memory task. Experimental Psychology, 51(4), 311–318. https://doi.org/
common mid-frontal substrate for action monitoring processes. Psychophysiology, 49 10.1027/1618-3169.51.4.311
(2), 220–238. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2011.01293.x Huettel, S., Stowe, C. J., Gordon, E. M., Warner, B. T., & Platt, M. L. (2006). Neural
Clayton, M. S., Yeung, N., & Cohen Kadosh, R. (2015). The roles of cortical oscillations in signatures of economic preferences for risk and ambiguity. Neuron, 49(5), 765–775.
sustained attention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19(4), 188–195. https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2006.01.024
10.1016/j.tics.2015.02.004 JASP Team. (2020). JASP (Version 0.13.1)[Computer software].
Cohen, M. X., & Donner, T. H. (2013). Midfrontal conflict-related theta-band power Jiménez, F. R., & Mendoza, N. A. (2013). Too popular to ignore: The influence of online
reflects neural oscillations that predict behavior. Journal of Neurophysiology, 110(12), reviews on purchase intentions of search and experience products. Journal of
2752–2763. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00479.2013 Interactive Marketing, 27(3), 226–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Cohen, M. X., Elger, C. E., & Ranganath, C. (2007). Reward expectation modulates intmar.2013.04.004
feedback-related negativity and EEG spectra. NeuroImage, 35(2), 968–978. https:// Jocham, G., Neumann, J., Klein, T. A., Danielmeier, C., & Ullsperger, M. (2009).
doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.11.056 Adaptive coding of action values in the human rostral cingulate zone. Journal of
Cooper, P. S., Karayanidis, F., McKewen, M., McLellan-Hall, S., Wong, A. S. W., Neuroscience, 29(23), 7489–7496. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0349-
Skippen, P., & Cavanagh, J. (2019). Frontal theta predicts specific cognitive control- 09.2009.Adaptive
induced behavioural changes beyond general reaction time slowing. NeuroImage, Kable, J. W., & Glimcher, P. W. (2009). The neurobiology of decision: Consensus and
189, 130–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.01.022 controversy. Neuron, 63(6), 733–745. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Cox, J., & Witten, I. B. (2019). Striatal circuits for reward learning and decision-making. neuron.2009.09.003
Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 20(8), 482–494. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41583-019- Kahneman, D. (2009). Remarks on neuroeconomics. In P. W. Glimcher, C. F. Camerer,
0189-2 E. Fehrm, & R. A. Poldrack (Eds.), Neuroeconomics. Decision making and the brain (pp.
523–526). London, England: Elsevier Inc.. Elsevier.

8
Í. Alí Diez and J. Marco-Pallarés Biological Psychology 161 (2021) 108060

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, values, and frames. The American Platt, M. L., & Padoa-Schioppa, C. (2009). Neuronal representations of value. In
Psychologist, 39(4), 341–350. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.39.4.341 P. W. Glimcher, C. F. Camerer, E. Fehrm, & R. A. Poldrack (Eds.), Neuroeconomics.
Karimi, S., Papamichail, K. N., & Holland, C. P. (2015). The effect of prior knowledge and Decision making and the brain (pp. 441–459). London, England: Elsevier Inc.. Elsevier.
decision-making style on the online purchase decision-making process: A typology of Polich, J. (2007). Updating P300: An integrative theory of P3a and P3b. Clinical
consumer shopping behaviour. Decision Support Systems, 77(2015), 137–147. https:// Neurophysiology, 118(10), 2128–2148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2015.06.004 clinph.2007.04.019
Lee, T. W., Girolami, M., & Sejnowski, T. J. (1999). Independent component analysis Polich, J., & Kok, A. (1995). Cognitive and biological determinants of P300: An
using an extended infomax algorithm for mixed subgaussian and supergaussian integrative review. Biological Psychology, 41(2), 103–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/
sources. Neural Computation, 11(2), 417–441. https://doi.org/10.1162/ 0301-0511(95)05130-9
089976699300016719 Polich, J., & Margala, C. (1997). P300 and probability: Comparison of oddball and single-
Levi-Aharoni, H., Shriki, O., & Tishby, N. (2020). Surprise response as a probe for stimulus paradigms. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 25(2), 169–176.
compressed memory states. PLoS Computational Biology, 16(2), Article e1007065. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8760(96)00742-8
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007065 Pornpattananangkul, N., & Nusslock, R. (2016). Willing to wait: Elevated reward-
Ling, K. C., Chai, L. T., & Piew, T. H. (2010). The effects of shopping orientations, online processing EEG activity associated with a greater preference for larger-but-delayed
trust and prior online purchase experience toward customers’ online purchase rewards. Neuropsychologia, 91, 141–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
intention. International Business Research, 3(3), 63. https://doi.org/10.5539/ibr. neuropsychologia.2016.07.037
v3n3p63 Quintanilla, I., & Luna-Arocas, R. (1999). Compra compulsiva y compra patológica.
Luck, S. (2014). A closer look at ERPs and ERP components. An introduction to the event- Informació Psicológica Dossier, 8–20.
related potential technique (pp. 35–70). Cambridge, United States of America: MIT Rangel, A., Camerer, C., & Montague, P. R. (2008). A framework for studying the
Press. neurobiology of value-based decision making. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 9(7),
Luna-Arocas, R., & Fierres, R. (1998). Incidencia en la compra por impulso en la ciudad 545–556. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2357
de Valencia. Revista Investigación y Marketing, 60, 16–25. Rappel, P., Grosberg, S., Arkadir, D., Linetsky, E., Abu Snineh, M., Bick, A. S., … Eitan, R.
Marco-Pallarés, J., Münte, T. F., & Rodríguez-Fornells, A. (2015). The role of high- (2020). Theta-alpha oscillations characterize emotional subregion in the human
frequency oscillatory activity in reward processing and learning. Neuroscience and ventral subthalamic nucleus. Movement Disorders, 35(2), 337–343. https://doi.org/
Biobehavioral Reviews, 49, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2014.11.014 10.1002/mds.27910
Marco-Pallarés, J., Nager, W., Krämer, U. M., Cunillera, T., Càmara, E., Cucurell, D., … Ravaja, N., Somervuori, O., & Salminen, M. (2013). Predicting purchase decision: The
Münte, T. F. (2010). Neurophysiological markers of novelty processing are role of hemispheric asymmetry over the frontal cortex. Journal of Neuroscience,
modulated by COMT and DRD4 genotypes. NeuroImage, 53(3), 962–969. https://doi. Psychology, and Economics, 6(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029949
org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.02.012 Raybaut, P. (2017). Spyder environment. Spyder documentation. Release 3. https://doi.org/
Maris, E., & Oostenveld, R. (2007). Nonparametric statistical testing of EEG- and MEG- 10.1016/0388-0001(94)90016-7
data. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 164(1), 177–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Rohrbaugh, J., Donchin, E., & Eriksen, C. W. (1974). Decision making and the P300
jneumeth.2007.03.024 component of the cortical evoked response. Perception & Psychophysics, 15(2),
Mas-Herrero, E., & Marco-Pallarés, J. (2014). Frontal theta oscillatory is a common 368–374.
mechanism for the computation of unexpected outcomes and learning rate. Journal Rossi, P. J., Gunduz, A., & Okun, M. S. (2015). The subthalamic nucleus, limbic function,
of Cognitive Neuroscience, 26(3), 447–458. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00516 and impulse control. Neuropsychology Review, 25(4), 398–410. https://doi.org/
Mas-Herrero, E., Ripollés, P., HajiHosseini, A., Rodríguez-Fornells, A., & Marco- 10.1007/s11065-015-9306-9
Pallarés, J. (2015). Beta oscillations and reward processing: Coupling oscillatory Si, Y., Wu, X., Li, F., Zhang, L., Duan, K., Li, P., … Xu, P. (2019). Different decision-
activity and hemodynamic responses. NeuroImage, 119, 13–19. https://doi.org/ making responses occupy different brain networks for information processing: A
10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.05.095 study based on EEG and TMS. Cerebral Cortex, 29(10), 4119–4129. https://doi.org/
Mas-Herrero, E., Sescousse, G., Cools, R., & Marco-Pallarés, J. (2019). The contribution 10.1093/cercor/bhy294
of striatal pseudo-reward prediction errors to value-based decision-making. Spitzer, B., & Haegens, S. (2017). Beyond the status quo: A role for beta oscillations in
NeuroImage, 193(February), 67–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. endogenous content (Re)activation. ENeuro, 4(4). https://doi.org/10.1523/
neuroimage.2019.02.052 ENEURO.0170-17.2017. ENEURO.0170-17.2017.
MathWorks. (2019). MATLAB and statistics toolbox 2019a. Natick, Massachusetts, United Sur, S., & Sinha, V. (2009). Event-related potential: An overview. Industrial Psychiatry
States: The MathWorks, Inc. Journal, 18(1), 70–73. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-6748.57865
Morgan, H. M., Klein, C., Boehm, S. G., Shapiro, K. L., & Linden, D. E. J. (2008). Working Tallon-Baudry, C., Bertrand, O., Delpuech, C., & Pernier, J. (1997). Oscillatory gamma-
memory load for faces modulates P300, N170, and N250r. Journal of Cognitive band (30-70 Hz) activity induced by a visual search task in humans. Journal of
Neuroscience, 20(6), 989–1002. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2008.20072 Neuroscience, 17(2), 722–734. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubme
Nieuwenhuis, S., Aston-Jones, G., & Cohen, J. D. (2005). Decision making, the P3, and d/8987794.
the locus coeruleus–norepinephrine system. Psychological Bulletin, 131(4), 510–532. Telpaz, A., Webb, R., & Levy, D. J. (2015). Using EEG to predict consumers’ future
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.131.4.510 choices. Journal of Marketing Research, 52(4), 511–529. https://doi.org/10.1509/
Noonan, M. P., Crittenden, B. M., Jensen, O., & Stokes, M. G. (2018). Selective inhibition jmr.13.0564
of distracting input. Behavioural Brain Research, 355, 36–47. https://doi.org/ Twomey, D. M., Murphy, P. R., Kelly, S. P., & O’Connell, R. G. (2015). The classic P300
10.1016/j.bbr.2017.10.010 encodes a build-to-threshold decision variable. The European Journal of Neuroscience,
Novak, K. D., & Foti, D. (2015). Teasing apart the anticipatory and consummatory 42(1), 1636–1643. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejn.12936
processing of monetary incentives: An event-related potential study of reward Volz, K. G., Schubotz, R. I., & Von Cramon, D. Y. (2005). Variants of uncertainty in
dynamics. Psychophysiology, 52(11), 1470–1482. https://doi.org/10.1111/ decision-making and their neural correlates. Brain Research Bulletin, 67(5), 403–412.
psyp.12504 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainresbull.2005.06.011
Pearson, J. M., Watson, K. K., & Platt, M. L. (2014). Decision making: The Wang, J., Chen, Z., Peng, X., Yang, T., Li, P., Cong, F., & Li, H. (2016). To know or not to
neuroethological turn. Neuron, 82(5), 950–965. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. know? Theta and delta reflect complementary information about an advanced cue
neuron.2014.04.037 before feedback in decision-making. Frontiers in Psychology, 7(10), 1–9. https://doi.
Picton, T. W. (1992). The P300 wave of the human event-related potential. Journal of org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01556
Clinical Neurophysiology, 9(4), 456–479. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004691- Wang, L., Zheng, J., Huang, S., & Sun, H. (2015). P300 and decision making under risk
199210000-00002 and ambiguity. Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience, 2015, 1–7. https://doi.
org/10.1155/2015/108417