| Literature DB >> 35624971 |
Manuela Sellitto1,2, Damiano Terenzi3,4, Francesca Starita1, Giuseppe di Pellegrino1, Simone Battaglia1,2.
Abstract
Growing evidence suggests that humans and other animals assign value to a stimulus based not only on its inherent rewarding properties, but also on the costs of the action required to obtain it, such as the cost of time. Here, we examined whether such cost also occurs for mentally simulated actions. Healthy volunteers indicated their subjective value for snack foods while the time to imagine performing the action to obtain the different stimuli was manipulated. In each trial, the picture of one food item and a home position connected through a path were displayed on a computer screen. The path could be either large or thin. Participants first rated the stimulus, and then imagined moving the mouse cursor along the path from the starting position to the food location. They reported the onset and offset of the imagined movements with a button press. Two main results emerged. First, imagery times were significantly longer for the thin than the large path. Second, participants liked significantly less the snack foods associated with the thin path (i.e., with longer imagery time), possibly because the passage of time strictly associated with action imagery discounts the value of the reward. Importantly, such effects were absent in a control group of participants who performed an identical valuation task, except that no action imagery was required. Our findings hint at the idea that imagined actions, like real actions, carry a cost that affects deeply how people assign value to the stimuli in their environment.Entities:
Keywords: Fitts’ law; delay discounting; effort discounting; mental simulation; motor imagery; reward value; visual imagery
Year: 2022 PMID: 35624971 PMCID: PMC9139426 DOI: 10.3390/brainsci12050582
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Brain Sci ISSN: 2076-3425
Participants’ demographic data.
| Group |
| Age | Education | Hunger | Fasting | BMI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Experimental | 20 | 23.35 (2.16) | 16.8 (1.85) | 2.25 (1.45) | 2.08 (1.34) | 21.49 (2.49) |
| Control | 20 | 23.85 (3.36) | 16.95 (2.46) | 2.75 (1.16) | 2.18 (1.32) | 21.52 (3.16) |
n is the number of participants. Age and Education are expressed in years. Hunger is expressed on a five-point scale. Fasting is expressed in hours. Body Mass Index (BMI) is expressed in kg/m2. Mean is represented out of the brackets, while the standard deviation is within them.
Figure 1Examples of visual stimuli and paths. Shown brands for demonstrative purpose only.
Figure 2Schematic representation of the experimental trial sequences. Participants had to imagine, in a first-person perspective, dragging the mouse along the path, from the starting point to the food item picture in the upper rectangle at the end of the path. They had to press the left mouse button with the index finger of the right hand to signal the start of their imagined movement, and the button had to be pressed again to flag the imagined reaching of the food item. Trials were separated by a 1000 ms inter-trial interval (ITI) with a blank screen.
Figure 3Analysis of the liking scores illustrates that the liking ratings were influenced by the path widths only in the experimental group (p < 0.001). Vertical lines indicate the standard error of mean (SEM), * p < 0.05.
Figure 4Analysis of the wanting scores illustrates that the wanting ratings were not differently influenced by the path widths in both groups. Vertical lines indicate the standard error of mean (SEM).
Figure 5Analysis of the motor imagery time illustrates that the path width had an influence on the response time only in the experimental group. Vertical lines indicate the standard error of mean (SEM), * p < 0.001.
Participants’ questionnaire scoring.
| VVIQ | VMIQ | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Experimental | Control | Experimental | Control |
|
| 58.4 | 63.9 | 84.7 | 89.3 |
|
| 7.93 | 8.41 | 15.75 | 14.31 |
The VVIQ score out of a maximum of 80, and the VMIQ score out of a maximum of 120.