Literature DB >> 30076214

Accounting for Taste: A Multi-Attribute Neurocomputational Model Explains the Neural Dynamics of Choices for Self and Others.

Alison Harris1, John A Clithero2, Cendri A Hutcherson3,4.   

Abstract

How do we make choices for others with different preferences from our own? Although neuroimaging studies implicate similar circuits in representing preferences for oneself and others, some models propose that additional corrective mechanisms come online when choices for others diverge from one's own preferences. Here we used event-related potentials (ERPs) in humans, in combination with computational modeling, to examine how social information is integrated in the time leading up to choices for oneself and others. Hungry male and female participants with unrestricted diets selected foods for themselves, a similar unrestricted eater, and a dissimilar, self-identified healthy eater. Across choices for both oneself and others, ERP value signals emerged within the same time window but differentially reflected taste and health attributes based on the recipient's preferences. Choices for the dissimilar recipient were associated with earlier activity localized to brain regions implicated in social cognition, including temporoparietal junction. Finally, response-locked analysis revealed a late ERP component specific to choices for the similar recipient, localized to the parietal lobe, that appeared to reflect differences in the response threshold based on uncertainty. A multi-attribute computational model supported the link between specific ERP components and distinct model parameters, and was not significantly improved by adding time-dependent dual processes. Model simulations suggested that longer response times previously associated with effortful correction may alternatively arise from higher choice uncertainty. Together, these results provide a parsimonious neurocomputational mechanism for social decision-making, additionally explaining divergent patterns of choice and response time data in decisions for oneself and others.SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT How do we choose for others, particularly when they have different preferences? Whereas some studies suggest that similar neural circuits underlie decision-making for oneself and others, others argue for additional, slower perspective-taking mechanisms. Combining event-related potentials with computational modeling, we found that integration of others' preferences occurs over the same timescale as for oneself while differentially tracking recipient-relevant attributes. Although choosing for others took longer and produced differences in late-emerging neural responses, computational modeling attributed these patterns to greater response caution rather than egocentric bias correction. Computational simulations also correctly predicted when and why choosing differently for others takes longer, suggesting that a model incorporating value integration and evidence accumulation can parsimoniously account for complex patterns in social decision-making.
Copyright © 2018 the authors 0270-6474/18/387952-17$15.00/0.

Entities:  

Keywords:  drift-diffusion model; event-related potentials; social decision making

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30076214      PMCID: PMC6596143          DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3327-17.2018

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


  51 in total

1.  Guidelines for using human event-related potentials to study cognition: recording standards and publication criteria.

Authors:  T W Picton; S Bentin; P Berg; E Donchin; S A Hillyard; R Johnson; G A Miller; W Ritter; D S Ruchkin; M D Rugg; M J Taylor
Journal:  Psychophysiology       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 4.016

Review 2.  Psychology and neurobiology of simple decisions.

Authors:  Philip L Smith; Roger Ratcliff
Journal:  Trends Neurosci       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 13.837

3.  Value computations in ventral medial prefrontal cortex during charitable decision making incorporate input from regions involved in social cognition.

Authors:  Todd A Hare; Colin F Camerer; Daniel T Knoepfle; Antonio Rangel
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2010-01-13       Impact factor: 6.167

4.  Empathic choice involves vmPFC value signals that are modulated by social processing implemented in IPL.

Authors:  Vanessa Janowski; Colin Camerer; Antonio Rangel
Journal:  Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci       Date:  2012-02-20       Impact factor: 3.436

5.  Harm to self outweighs benefit to others in moral decision making.

Authors:  Lukas J Volz; B Locke Welborn; Matthias S Gobel; Michael S Gazzaniga; Scott T Grafton
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2017-07-10       Impact factor: 11.205

6.  Anchoring and adjustment during social inferences.

Authors:  Diana I Tamir; Jason P Mitchell
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  2012-04-16

7.  Decoding the Charitable Brain: Empathy, Perspective Taking, and Attention Shifts Differentially Predict Altruistic Giving.

Authors:  Anita Tusche; Anne Böckler; Philipp Kanske; Fynn-Mathis Trautwein; Tania Singer
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2016-04-27       Impact factor: 6.167

8.  Right supramarginal gyrus is crucial to overcome emotional egocentricity bias in social judgments.

Authors:  Giorgia Silani; Claus Lamm; Christian C Ruff; Tania Singer
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2013-09-25       Impact factor: 6.167

9.  Dynamic construction of stimulus values in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex.

Authors:  Alison Harris; Ralph Adolphs; Colin Camerer; Antonio Rangel
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-06-14       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Learning about and from others' prudence, impatience or laziness: The computational bases of attitude alignment.

Authors:  Marie Devaine; Jean Daunizeau
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2017-03-30       Impact factor: 4.475

View more
  9 in total

Review 1.  Affect and Decision Making: Insights and Predictions from Computational Models.

Authors:  Ian D Roberts; Cendri A Hutcherson
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2019-05-16       Impact factor: 20.229

2.  The dorsomedial prefrontal cortex computes task-invariant relative subjective value for self and other.

Authors:  Matthew Piva; Kayla Velnoskey; Ruonan Jia; Amrita Nair; Ifat Levy; Steve Wc Chang
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2019-06-13       Impact factor: 8.140

3.  Comparing two neurocognitive models of self-control during dietary decisions.

Authors:  Danielle Cosme; Rita M Ludwig; Elliot T Berkman
Journal:  Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci       Date:  2019-09-30       Impact factor: 3.436

Review 4.  Filling the gaps: Cognitive control as a critical lens for understanding mechanisms of value-based decision-making.

Authors:  R Frömer; A Shenhav
Journal:  Neurosci Biobehav Rev       Date:  2021-12-10       Impact factor: 8.989

Review 5.  Advances in modeling learning and decision-making in neuroscience.

Authors:  Anne G E Collins; Amitai Shenhav
Journal:  Neuropsychopharmacology       Date:  2021-08-27       Impact factor: 7.853

Review 6.  Decision neuroscience and neuroeconomics: Recent progress and ongoing challenges.

Authors:  Jeffrey B Dennison; Daniel Sazhin; David V Smith
Journal:  Wiley Interdiscip Rev Cogn Sci       Date:  2022-02-08

7.  Neuroeconomics, health psychology, and the interdisciplinary study of preventative health behavior.

Authors:  Krista L DeStasio; John A Clithero; Elliot T Berkman
Journal:  Soc Personal Psychol Compass       Date:  2019-10-23

8.  Experimentally revealed stochastic preferences for multicomponent choice options.

Authors:  Alexandre Pastor-Bernier; Konstantin Volkmann; Arkadiusz Stasiak; Fabian Grabenhorst; Wolfram Schultz
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Anim Learn Cogn       Date:  2020-07-27       Impact factor: 2.478

9.  Goal congruency dominates reward value in accounting for behavioral and neural correlates of value-based decision-making.

Authors:  Romy Frömer; Carolyn K Dean Wolf; Amitai Shenhav
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2019-10-29       Impact factor: 14.919

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.