Literature DB >> 24142842

Frontal-parietal and limbic-striatal activity underlies information sampling in the best choice problem.

Vincent D Costa1, Bruno B Averbeck1.   

Abstract

Best choice problems have a long mathematical history, but their neural underpinnings remain unknown. Best choice tasks are optimal stopping problem that require subjects to view a list of options one at a time and decide whether to take or decline each option. The goal is to find a high ranking option in the list, under the restriction that declined options cannot be chosen in the future. Conceptually, the decision to take or decline an option is related to threshold crossing in drift diffusion models, when this process is thought of as a value comparison. We studied this task in healthy volunteers using fMRI, and used a Markov decision process to quantify the value of continuing to search versus committing to the current option. Decisions to take versus decline an option engaged parietal and dorsolateral prefrontal cortices, as well ventral striatum, anterior insula, and anterior cingulate. Therefore, brain regions previously implicated in evidence integration and reward representation encode threshold crossings that trigger decisions to commit to a choice. Published by Oxford University Press 2013. This work is written by (a) US Government employee(s) and is in the public domain in the US.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bayesian; decision-making; fMRI

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24142842      PMCID: PMC4366612          DOI: 10.1093/cercor/bht286

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cereb Cortex        ISSN: 1047-3211            Impact factor:   5.357


  19 in total

1.  Cortico-basal ganglia circuit mechanism for a decision threshold in reaction time tasks.

Authors:  Chung-Chuan Lo; Xiao-Jing Wang
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  2006-06-11       Impact factor: 24.884

Review 2.  The reward circuit: linking primate anatomy and human imaging.

Authors:  Suzanne N Haber; Brian Knutson
Journal:  Neuropsychopharmacology       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 7.853

3.  The decision value computations in the vmPFC and striatum use a relative value code that is guided by visual attention.

Authors:  Seung-Lark Lim; John P O'Doherty; Antonio Rangel
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2011-09-14       Impact factor: 6.167

4.  The cost of accumulating evidence in perceptual decision making.

Authors:  Jan Drugowitsch; Rubén Moreno-Bote; Anne K Churchland; Michael N Shadlen; Alexandre Pouget
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2012-03-14       Impact factor: 6.167

5.  Involvement of human left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in perceptual decision making is independent of response modality.

Authors:  H R Heekeren; S Marrett; D A Ruff; P A Bandettini; L G Ungerleider
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2006-06-19       Impact factor: 11.205

6.  Lateral intraparietal cortex and reinforcement learning during a mixed-strategy game.

Authors:  Hyojung Seo; Dominic J Barraclough; Daeyeol Lee
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2009-06-03       Impact factor: 6.167

Review 7.  Valuation of uncertain and delayed rewards in primate prefrontal cortex.

Authors:  Soyoun Kim; Jaewon Hwang; Hyojung Seo; Daeyeol Lee
Journal:  Neural Netw       Date:  2009-03-29

8.  Domain general mechanisms of perceptual decision making in human cortex.

Authors:  Tiffany C Ho; Scott Brown; John T Serences
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2009-07-08       Impact factor: 6.167

9.  Neural mechanisms of foraging.

Authors:  Nils Kolling; Timothy E J Behrens; Rogier B Mars; Matthew F S Rushworth
Journal:  Science       Date:  2012-04-06       Impact factor: 47.728

10.  Probabilistic learning and inference in schizophrenia.

Authors:  Bruno B Averbeck; Simon Evans; Viraj Chouhan; Eleanor Bristow; Sukhwinder S Shergill
Journal:  Schizophr Res       Date:  2011-04       Impact factor: 4.939

View more
  10 in total

1.  Injection of a dopamine type 2 receptor antagonist into the dorsal striatum disrupts choices driven by previous outcomes, but not perceptual inference.

Authors:  Eunjeong Lee; Moonsang Seo; Olga Dal Monte; Bruno B Averbeck
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2015-04-22       Impact factor: 6.167

2.  Looking for Mr(s) Right: Decision bias can prevent us from finding the most attractive face.

Authors:  Nicholas Furl; Bruno B Averbeck; Ryan T McKay
Journal:  Cogn Psychol       Date:  2019-03-01       Impact factor: 3.468

3.  Subjective optimality in finite sequential decision-making.

Authors:  Yeonju Sin; HeeYoung Seon; Yun Kyoung Shin; Oh-Sang Kwon; Dongil Chung
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2021-12-16       Impact factor: 4.475

4.  Do Parkinson's Disease Patients Have Deficits in Sequential Sampling Tasks?

Authors:  Atbin Djamshidian; Jennifer Mulhall; Alessandro Tomassini; Grace Crotty; Thomas T Warner; Andrew Lees; Sean S O'Sullivan; Bruno B Averbeck
Journal:  Mov Disord Clin Pract       Date:  2014-07-31

5.  Theory of choice in bandit, information sampling and foraging tasks.

Authors:  Bruno B Averbeck
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2015-03-27       Impact factor: 4.475

Review 6.  Jumping to conclusions in schizophrenia.

Authors:  Simon L Evans; Bruno B Averbeck; Nicholas Furl
Journal:  Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat       Date:  2015-07-01       Impact factor: 2.570

7.  Neural and sympathetic activity associated with exploration in decision-making: further evidence for involvement of insula.

Authors:  Hideki Ohira; Naho Ichikawa; Kenta Kimura; Seisuke Fukuyama; Jun Shinoda; Jitsuhiro Yamada
Journal:  Front Behav Neurosci       Date:  2014-11-10       Impact factor: 3.558

8.  Prospection, Perseverance, and Insight in Sequential Behavior.

Authors:  Nils Kolling; Jacqueline Scholl; Adam Chekroud; Hailey A Trier; Matthew F S Rushworth
Journal:  Neuron       Date:  2018-09-05       Impact factor: 17.173

9.  Older adults process the probability of winning sooner but weigh it less during lottery decisions.

Authors:  Shu-Chen Li; Todd A Hare; Hsiang-Yu Chen; Gaia Lombardi
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-07-05       Impact factor: 4.996

10.  Dopamine manipulations drive changes in information sampling in healthy volunteers.

Authors:  Raquel Vicario-Feliciano; Rebekah L Wigton; Thomas P White; Sukhi S Shergill; Bruno B Averbeck
Journal:  J Psychopharmacol       Date:  2019-01-15       Impact factor: 4.153

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.