Literature DB >> 26269633

The Good, the Bad, and the Irrelevant: Neural Mechanisms of Learning Real and Hypothetical Rewards and Effort.

Jacqueline Scholl1, Nils Kolling2, Natalie Nelissen2, Marco K Wittmann2, Catherine J Harmer3, Matthew F S Rushworth4.   

Abstract

Natural environments are complex, and a single choice can lead to multiple outcomes. Agents should learn which outcomes are due to their choices and therefore relevant for future decisions and which are stochastic in ways common to all choices and therefore irrelevant for future decisions between options. We designed an experiment in which human participants learned the varying reward and effort magnitudes of two options and repeatedly chose between them. The reward associated with a choice was randomly real or hypothetical (i.e., participants only sometimes received the reward magnitude associated with the chosen option). The real/hypothetical nature of the reward on any one trial was, however, irrelevant for learning the longer-term values of the choices, and participants ought to have only focused on the informational content of the outcome and disregarded whether it was a real or hypothetical reward. However, we found that participants showed an irrational choice bias, preferring choices that had previously led, by chance, to a real reward in the last trial. Amygdala and ventromedial prefrontal activity was related to the way in which participants' choices were biased by real reward receipt. By contrast, activity in dorsal anterior cingulate cortex, frontal operculum/anterior insula, and especially lateral anterior prefrontal cortex was related to the degree to which participants resisted this bias and chose effectively in a manner guided by aspects of outcomes that had real and more sustained relationships with particular choices, suppressing irrelevant reward information for more optimal learning and decision making. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: In complex natural environments, a single choice can lead to multiple outcomes. Human agents should only learn from outcomes that are due to their choices, not from outcomes without such a relationship. We designed an experiment to measure learning about reward and effort magnitudes in an environment in which other features of the outcome were random and had no relationship with choice. We found that, although people could learn about reward magnitudes, they nevertheless were irrationally biased toward repeating certain choices as a function of the presence or absence of random reward features. Activity in different brain regions in the prefrontal cortex either reflected the bias or reflected resistance to the bias.
Copyright © 2015 Scholl, Kolling et al.

Entities:  

Keywords:  effort; frontal pole; hypothetical; learning; reward; vmPFC

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26269633      PMCID: PMC4532756          DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0396-15.2015

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neurosci        ISSN: 0270-6474            Impact factor:   6.167


  59 in total

Review 1.  Advances in functional and structural MR image analysis and implementation as FSL.

Authors:  Stephen M Smith; Mark Jenkinson; Mark W Woolrich; Christian F Beckmann; Timothy E J Behrens; Heidi Johansen-Berg; Peter R Bannister; Marilena De Luca; Ivana Drobnjak; David E Flitney; Rami K Niazy; James Saunders; John Vickers; Yongyue Zhang; Nicola De Stefano; J Michael Brady; Paul M Matthews
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 6.556

2.  Smokers' brains compute, but ignore, a fictive error signal in a sequential investment task.

Authors:  Pearl H Chiu; Terry M Lohrenz; P Read Montague
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  2008-03-02       Impact factor: 24.884

3.  Aversive Pavlovian control of instrumental behavior in humans.

Authors:  Dirk E M Geurts; Quentin J M Huys; Hanneke E M den Ouden; Roshan Cools
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2013-05-22       Impact factor: 3.225

4.  Learning to minimize efforts versus maximizing rewards: computational principles and neural correlates.

Authors:  Vasilisa Skvortsova; Stefano Palminteri; Mathias Pessiglione
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2014-11-19       Impact factor: 6.167

5.  Visual inspection of independent components: defining a procedure for artifact removal from fMRI data.

Authors:  Robert E Kelly; George S Alexopoulos; Zhishun Wang; Faith M Gunning; Christopher F Murphy; Sarah Shizuko Morimoto; Dora Kanellopoulos; Zhiru Jia; Kelvin O Lim; Matthew J Hoptman
Journal:  J Neurosci Methods       Date:  2010-04-08       Impact factor: 2.390

6.  Human cognition. Foundations of human reasoning in the prefrontal cortex.

Authors:  Maël Donoso; Anne G E Collins; Etienne Koechlin
Journal:  Science       Date:  2014-05-29       Impact factor: 47.728

7.  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

Review 8.  FSL.

Authors:  Mark Jenkinson; Christian F Beckmann; Timothy E J Behrens; Mark W Woolrich; Stephen M Smith
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2011-09-16       Impact factor: 6.556

9.  Comparison of human ventral frontal cortex areas for cognitive control and language with areas in monkey frontal cortex.

Authors:  Franz-Xaver Neubert; Rogier B Mars; Adam G Thomas; Jerome Sallet; Matthew F S Rushworth
Journal:  Neuron       Date:  2014-01-28       Impact factor: 17.173

10.  Tools of the trade: psychophysiological interactions and functional connectivity.

Authors:  Jill X O'Reilly; Mark W Woolrich; Timothy E J Behrens; Stephen M Smith; Heidi Johansen-Berg
Journal:  Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci       Date:  2012-05-07       Impact factor: 3.436

View more
  38 in total

1.  Separate mesocortical and mesolimbic pathways encode effort and reward learning signals.

Authors:  Tobias U Hauser; Eran Eldar; Raymond J Dolan
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2017-08-14       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 2.  Differences in Behavior and Brain Activity during Hypothetical and Real Choices.

Authors:  Colin Camerer; Dean Mobbs
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2016-12-12       Impact factor: 20.229

3.  Structural connectivity and risk for anhedonia after trauma: A prospective study and replication.

Authors:  Negar Fani; Vasiliki Michopoulos; Sanne J H van Rooij; Cherita Clendinen; Raven A Hardy; Tanja Jovanovic; Barbara O Rothbaum; Kerry J Ressler; Jennifer S Stevens
Journal:  J Psychiatr Res       Date:  2019-05-14       Impact factor: 4.791

4.  Separate neural representations of prediction error valence and surprise: Evidence from an fMRI meta-analysis.

Authors:  Elsa Fouragnan; Chris Retzler; Marios G Philiastides
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2018-03-25       Impact factor: 5.038

Review 5.  The tenacious brain: How the anterior mid-cingulate contributes to achieving goals.

Authors:  Alexandra Touroutoglou; Joseph Andreano; Bradford C Dickerson; Lisa Feldman Barrett
Journal:  Cortex       Date:  2019-10-09       Impact factor: 4.027

6.  The relationship between outcome prediction and cognitive fatigue: A convergence of paradigms.

Authors:  G R Wylie; H M Genova; J DeLuca; E Dobryakova
Journal:  Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci       Date:  2017-08       Impact factor: 3.282

Review 7.  A Network Neuroscience of Human Learning: Potential to Inform Quantitative Theories of Brain and Behavior.

Authors:  Danielle S Bassett; Marcelo G Mattar
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2017-03-02       Impact factor: 20.229

8.  Motivation in the Service of Allostasis: The Role of anterior Mid Cingulate Cortex.

Authors:  Alexandra Touroutoglou; Joseph M Andreano; Morenikeji Adebayo; Sam Lyons; Lisa Feldman Barrett
Journal:  Adv Motiv Sci       Date:  2018-09-25

9.  Value, search, persistence and model updating in anterior cingulate cortex.

Authors:  Nils Kolling; Marco K Wittmann; Tim E J Behrens; Erie D Boorman; Rogier B Mars; Matthew F S Rushworth
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  2016-09-27       Impact factor: 24.884

10.  Neural Signatures of Value Comparison in Human Cingulate Cortex during Decisions Requiring an Effort-Reward Trade-off.

Authors:  Miriam C Klein-Flügge; Steven W Kennerley; Karl Friston; Sven Bestmann
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2016-09-28       Impact factor: 6.167

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.