Good translatability of behavioral measures of affect (emotion) between human and nonhuman animals is core to comparative studies. The judgment bias (JB) task, which measures “optimistic” and “pessimistic” decision-making under ambiguity as indicators of positive and negative affective valence, has been used in both human and nonhuman animals. However, one key disparity between human and nonhuman studies is that the former typically use secondary reinforcers (e.g., money) whereas the latter typically use primary reinforcers (e.g., food). To address this deficiency and shed further light on JB as a measure of affect, we developed a novel version of a JB task for humans using primary reinforcers. Data on decision-making and reported affective state during the JB task were analyzed using computational modeling. Overall, participants grasped the task well, and as anticipated, their reported affective valence correlated with trial-by-trial variation in offered volume of juice. In addition, previous findings from monetary versions of the task were replicated: More positive prediction errors were associated with more positive affective valence, a higher lapse rate was associated with lower affective arousal, and affective arousal decreased as a function of number of trials completed. There was no evidence that more positive valence was associated with greater “optimism,” but instead, there was evidence that affective valence influenced the participants' decision stochasticity, whereas affective arousal tended to influence their propensity for errors. This novel version of the JB task provides a useful tool for investigation of the links between primary reward and punisher experience, affect, and decision-making, especially from a comparative perspective.

人类和非人类动物之间影响（情感）的行为测量的良好可译性是比较研究的核心。判断偏差 (JB) 任务在不确定性下衡量“乐观”和“悲观”决策作为积极和消极情感效价的指标，已在人类和非人类动物中使用。然而，人类和非人类研究之间的一个主要差异是前者通常使用二级强化物（例如金钱），而后者通常使用初级强化物（例如食物）。为了解决这一缺陷并进一步阐明 JB 作为情感衡量标准，我们为使用初级强化物的人类开发了一种新版本的 JB 任务。使用计算建模分析了 JB 任务期间的决策数据和报告的情感状态。全面的，参与者很好地掌握了任务，并且正如预期的那样，他们报告的情感效价与提供的果汁量的逐次试验变化相关。此外，该任务的货币版本的先前发现被复制：更多的积极预测错误与更多的积极情感效价相关，较高的失效率与较低的情感唤起相关，情感唤起作为完成试验次数的函数而下降。没有证据表明更积极的效价与更大的“乐观”有关，但有证据表明情感效价会影响参与者的决策随机性，而情感唤醒往往会影响他们的错误倾向。