Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26269633›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience2015

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

Jacqueline Scholl, Nils Kolling, Natalie Nelissen, Marco K Wittmann, Catherine J Harmer, Matthew F S Rushworth

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 53 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
53citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

53 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Social Effort Discounting Reveals Domain-General and Social-Specific Motivation Components.Biological psychiatry. Cognitive neuroscience and neuroimaging · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Prefrontal cortex interactions with the amygdala in primates.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2022
    Review
  18. Constructing Others' Beliefs from One's Own Using Medial Frontal Cortex.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2021
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Jacqueline SchollDepartment of Psychiatry, Department of Experimental Psychology, and Jacqueline.scholl@cantab.net.
Nils KollingDepartment of Experimental Psychology, and.
Natalie NelissenDepartment of Experimental Psychology, and.
Marco K WittmannDepartment of Experimental Psychology, and.
Catherine J HarmerDepartment of Psychiatry.
Matthew F S RushworthDepartment of Experimental Psychology, and Oxford Centre for Functional MRI of the Brain, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 9DU, United Kingdom.

Funding

Medical Research Council G0700399Wellcome Trust 100973
6 · The paper itself

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.

Indexed as

RewardAdultBrainBrain-Computer InterfacesChoice BehaviorFemaleHumansLearningMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleModels, NeurologicalYoung Adulteffortfrontal polehypotheticallearningrewardvmPFC

Identifiers

PMID26269633
PMCPMC4532756

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.