Emotion recognition/categorization Task 1: Emotional Recognition Task (ERT)

We developed two versions of an ERT; one with full faces, and one with eyes only. In these tasks, the participant is shown a series of faces or eyes that appear on the screen briefly, and is asked to identify the emotion (happiness, sadness, anger or fear). In the control condition, participants are asked to identify the age of a face (child, young adult, middle aged, elderly).

Time to administer: 12 min

Outcome Measures: Accuracy scores were calculated for each facial emotion (happiness, sadness, anger, and fear). Average accuracy refers to average accuracy across all four emotions. Affective bias scores were calculated by subtracting accuracy for sad faces from accuracy from happy faces. This analysis was also performed for the eyes emotional recognition test.

Task 2: Emotional Intensity Morphing Task

This task assesses the point of emotional intensity at which participants can recognize a facial emotion. Participants view faces that either increase or decrease in emotional intensity and are instructed to respond when they either (a) detect the presence of emotion or (b) no longer detect the presence of emotion. The emotion that they were detecting was made explicit to participants. The task includes five different emotions: happiness, sadness, anger, fear, and disgust.

Time to administer: 5 min

Outcome Measures: The point of detection was calculated by taking the level of intensity in the facial expression needed in order to detect (increasing) or no longer detect (decreasing) each emotion. The Average point of detection refers to average point of detection across all five emotions. Affective bias scores were calculated by subtracting the point of detection for sad faces from point of detection from happy faces.

Attentional bias Task 3: Face Affective Go No-Go Task

This task assesses information processing biases for positive and negative facial expressions. The participant is told a target emotion (happy, sad, neutral), and asked to press a button only when the target emotion is present. The task consists of six blocks, each of which presents a series of faces: (1) happy target/sad distractor, (2) happy target/neutral distractor, (3) neutral target/happy distract, (4) neutral target/sad distract, (5) sad target/happy distract, and (6) sad target/neutral distract.

Time to administer: 6 min

Outcome Measures: Reaction times (RT) were calculated for all “hit” responses for each of the six conditions. Affective bias scores were calculated by subtracting the sad target/happy distract condition RT from the happy target/sad distractor condition RT.

Task 4: Word Affective Go No-Go

This task assesses information processing biases for positive, negative and neutral emotional words. Words were chosen based on their ratings in a pilot study in an independent cohort of 30 volunteers and were matched for valence, arousal, frequency and word length. Participants are given a target emotion (happy, sad, neutral), and asked to press a button only when the target emotion is present. Similarly to the faces affective go no go, the task consists of six blocks, each of which presents a series of words: (1) happy target/sad distractor, (2) happy target/neutral distractor, (3) neutral target/happy distractor, (4) neutral target/sad distractor, (5) sad target/happy distractor, and (6) sad target/neutral distractor. Note that this task is not the same as the Cambridge Cognition (www.cambridgecognition.com) word affective go no-go task.

Time to administer: 6 min

Outcome Measures: Reaction times (RT) were calculated for all “hit” responses for each of the six conditions. Affective bias scores were calculated by subtracting the sad target/happy distract condition RT from the happy target/sad distractor condition RT.

Emotional memory Task 5: The Emotional Memory Recognition Task

This task assesses biases in the recognition of emotional stimuli. During the encoding stage, participants are asked to rate images displaying positive, negative or neutral scenes, on valence and arousal intensity. Images were of scenes without people and were validated as positive, negative or neutral on the basis of pilot testing in an independent cohort of 30 volunteers. During the retrieval stage, images from the encoding phase are paired with new images. Participants are asked to indicate which image they saw previously. The encoding phase consists of 30 images (10 positive, 10 negative and 10 neutral) whilst the retrieval phase consists of 60 images (20 positive, 20 negative and 20 neutral), half of which were previously seen in the encoding phase.

Time to administer: 5 min

Outcome Measures: Valence and intensity ratings from the encoding phase were calculated for each valence condition; positive, negative and neutral. Retrieval affective bias was calculated by subtracting accuracy for negative stimuli from accuracy for positive stimuli.

MOTIVATION AND REWARD

Reinforcement learning Task 6: Reinforcement Learning Task

This task separately assesses reward and punishment learning. Participants are shown colored circles, and asked to make a choice between the two based on which one they thought was more likely to win money and not lose money. Participants receive feedback and are continually updated on their total score. There are two conditions; one condition is a no lose condition whereby participants either win (£0.50 presented as 50p) or fail to win (0p). The second condition is a no win in condition whereby they lose (50p) or avoid losing (0p). Participants must learn, through sampling the circles, which of the two is the better option, with probabilities (unknown to participants) set at 70%/30%. In the transfer phase, all possible pairs of circles are presented and participants choose their preferred option. In this phase, no feedback is given.

Time to administer: 12 min

Outcome Measures: A reinforcement learning model was applied to the data. Learning rate (alpha) refers to how fast the participant learns new information. A high learning rate indicates that the participant incorporates new information more quickly. Alpha was calculated for win and loss conditions separately.

Incentive motivation Task 7: The Monetary Incentive Reward (MIR) Task

This task assesses effort to avoid punishments and gain rewards. Participants see a pair of identical circles displayed on the screen, shortly followed by a black box. Participants are instructed to make a response as soon as the black box appears. The circles contain colored lines, which indicate that on that trial they will either gain or lose money. The distance between the lines indicates the size of loss/gain. The faster they respond the more money they win or the less money they lose, and this relationship remains constant throughout the task.

Time to administer: 10 min

Outcome Measures: Reaction times were calculated for each condition; high win, low win, low loss and high loss. These reaction times were further standardized by subtracting each of the four conditions from the neutral “baseline” reaction time. High and low win reaction times were combined to produce the average reaction time for wins. Likewise high and low loss reaction times were combined to produce the average reaction time for loss.

Task 8: The Progressive Ratio Task

Progressive ratio tasks have been widely used to examine motivation in non-human subjects (Hodos, 1961; Bradshaw and Killeen, 2012). More recently, progressive ratio tasks have been adapted for use in humans using a variety of rewards (e.g., money, stimulants, food) to assess self-control and identify participants' motivational “breakpoint,” i.e., the maximum effort that a participant will expend in order to receive a reward (Roane, 2008). In this task participants are presented with four red squares on the screen and are instructed to select the square that differs in size to the other three. Participants are paid progressively less per trial as they continue with the task. They are also told that they can stop their participation in the task at any point, but that they still have to sit facing the screen for the remaining time (20 min minus the time they performed the task).

Time to administer: 20 min

Outcome Measures: The progressive Ratio task was adapted part way through the study therefore data is only presented for the adapted task (participant n = 78). The total number of trials was calculated in order to estimate the breakpoint, i.e., the point at which participants did not wish to continue with the task. Running rate was calculated as the time taken to complete the block of trials. The post reinforcement pause was the average time taken to initiate the next trial following a reward. Approximately 57% of participants completed the task therefore only allowing us to calculate a breakpoint for the remaining participants. Consequently, the progressive ratio task was not included in the factor analysis and test-retest reliability determinations.

Value-based choice Task 9: The adapted Cambridge Gambling Task

This task was developed to assess decision-making and risk-taking behavior, with reward and loss trials administered separately. On each trial, the participant is presented with a roulette wheel; a proportion of which is colored purple and a proportion of which is orange. There are 5 different proportions ranging from very certain to very uncertain. Participants must place a bet on the outcome they expect. A spinning pointer is then displayed, which lands on one of the colors, providing feedback for the participant. There are two conditions; a loss condition and a win condition which allows the separation of reward and punishment.

Time to administer: 10 min

Outcome Measures: The average value of chips placed on each level of probability was calculated separately for the win and loss conditions. Only choices of the most likely outcome were included. This was used to compute a risk adjustment (RA) score using the formula: Risk adjustment = (2*bet at 90%) + (1*bet at 80%) + (0*bet at 70%) - (1*bet at 60%) - (2*bet at 50%)/Average bet. RA was calculated for win and loss conditions separately.

IMPULSIVITY

Waiting impulsivity Task 10: The four-choice serial reaction time task

This task (Voon et al., 2014) assesses visual attention, and ability to monitor and respond to unpredictable targets. Participants have to indicate a box, from 4 choices, in which a target has appeared.

Time to administer: 25 min

Outcome Measures: Data from 175 participants was utilized in the analyses due to initial technical problems. The motivational index was calculated by using the following formula: motivational index = (baseline reaction time—post baseline reaction time)/ baseline reaction time. The number of premature events was calculated as the combination of the number of premature releases (releasing the spacebar prematurely) and the number of premature responses (releasing the space bar prematurely and touching the screen).

Delay and probability discounting Task 11: The Discounting Task

This task assesses the rate of discounting across delays and probabilities. There are ten conditions; five levels of delay (0, 30, 90, 180, 365 days) and five levels of probability (100, 90, 75, 50, 25%). Participants must decide whether they would prefer a standard fixed amount (always £20) associated with a particular delay or probability, compared to an alternative amount definitely available immediately.

Time to administer: 7 min

Outcome Measures: Indifference points were calculated for each length of delay or degree of uncertainty. These indifference points refer to the amount of immediately available money that the participant considered to be equivalent to the delayed or uncertain reward. For delay discounting, the area under the curve was used to calculate the level of discounting using the following formula: Area under the curve = [(2-0)*((indifference point at 0 days + indifference point at 2 days)/2)]+[(30-2)*((indifference point at 2 days + indifference point at 30 days)/2)+[(180-30)*((indifference point at 3 days + indifference point at 180 days)/2)]+ [(365 -180)*((indifference point at 180 days+ indifference point at 365)/2)]. A smaller AUC, indicates more severe discounting of the delayed reward and thus greater impulsivity. A similar analysis was conducted for probability discounting, whereby smaller AUC indicates greater risk aversion.

SOCIAL COGNITION

Moral emotion Task 12: The Moral Emotions task

This task uses cartoon figures to depict moral scenarios. Half of the scenarios depicted a deliberate harm whereas the remaining half depicted an accidental harm in order to explore the effect of intention upon moral emotions. Participants were asked to imagine how they would feel in the situation as either the actor or the victim, and rated the following emotions; guilt, shame, anger and feeling “bad.”

Time to administer: 13 min

Outcome Measures: The average rating for feeling bad was calculated across all conditions: victim vs. agent and intentional vs. unintentional. Agent ratings for guilt were also calculated.

Theory of Mind Task 13: Social Information Preference Test

This task assesses information sampling in socially ambiguous situations. Participants are shown a scene, with three faces (feelings), three thoughts and three facts about the scene hidden from view. Participants are able to select only four out of nine pieces of information to help resolve ambiguity. They then choose between three possible outcomes of the situation (negative, positive or neutral), which provides a measure of interpretational bias.

Time to administer: 10 min

Outcome Measures: The proportion of thoughts selected and the valence of the chosen outcome, positive, negative or neutral was calculated. The affective bias in interpretation was calculated by subtracting the proportion of negative outcomes chosen from the proportion of positive outcomes chosen.

Social economic exchange games Task 14: Prisoners' Dilemma

This task assesses cooperation with a computerized opponent. On each trial, participants must repeatedly press the space bar as fast as they can in order to fill a jar with coins. Each trial is manipulated so that the participant wins more coins, the opponent wins more coins, or they both win equal amounts. The coin totals are then combined and participants are instructed that they may either split or steal the total sum. Participants are told that if they both choose to split, they get half the money each, and if they both steal, they each get nothing. If they split and the opponent steals they get nothing and the opponent gets everything. Alternatively, if they steal and their opponent splits, they get everything and the opponent nothing. Participants are faced with three different opponents each with a different strategy: aggressive (tit for tat, but starts with steal), tit for two tats (starts with split, then changes behavior after the player has stolen two times consecutively) and a cooperative player who always splits.

Time to administer: 10 min

Outcome Measures: The average steal proportion was calculated as the proportion of trials that participants chose to steal from their opponent from the total number of trials across each type of opponent (aggressive, tit for two tats and cooperative).

Task 15: Ultimatum Game

This task assesses sensitivity to fairness and tendency to inflict punishment. Similarly to the Prisoner's Dilemma, participants initially complete a task in which they can win money. Here they can select 3 balls from a choice of 9 and depending on what colors are revealed behind the balls, participants can win money. Each trial is manipulated so that the participant wins more money, the opponent wins more money, or they both win equal amounts. This money is then combined with the opponent's total. Next, participants are informed whether they get to decide how the money is split or whether it is up to the opponent. If the opponent divides the money, the participant gets the choice to either accept or reject their offer. These offers have seven levels ranging from fair (50:50) to increasingly unfair (10:90). If the participant accepts, they each get the allotted amount, and if they reject, they both get nothing. When the participant divides, they can choose from four divisions differing in fairness (50:50, 40:60, 30:70, 20:80, and 10:90).

Time to administer: 12 min

Outcome Measures: The proportion of offers accepted was calculated as the number of trials that participants chose to accept the offer from their opponent from the total number of trials. Risk adjustment was further calculated by using the following formula: Risk adjustment = (2*acceptance at 50% offer) + (1* acceptance at 40% offer) + (0* acceptance at 30% offer) − (1* acceptance at 20% offer) − (2* acceptance at 10% offer)/Average offer. The average offer proposed refers to proportion of times participants chose each of the four levels of offer available.

Task 16: Inference Task

Participants initially view a series of face pairs and are instructed to touch the more confident of each pair. This confirms that they are able to read confidence in faces. Participants are then asked to guess the contents of a series of buckets (mostly red or mostly blue jellybeans), based on a combination of information sources. On each trial, the subject and the honest computer (who never lies) each take a sample from the bucket. The participant is provided with: a sample of eight jellybeans, the answer of the honest computer (based on its own sample; it does not know the participant's) and the confidence of the honest computer in the answer it provided. This confidence is expressed with a human facial expression, either positive or skeptical. Each bucket is different from the rest, and independently numbered. The sample, answer of the computer and computer confidence are independently manipulated. Optimally, the subject will be able to increase the computer's influence when it expresses confidence and decrease its influence when it is apparently unsure of its decision. Information inferred from the choice and confidence of the computer must also be combined with information directly observed in one's own

Time to administer: 16 min