Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28234892›Full record

ArticlePLoS biology2017

Neurocomputational mechanisms underlying subjective valuation of effort costs.

Trevor T-J Chong, Matthew Apps, Kathrin Giehl, Annie Sillence, Laura L Grima, Masud Husain

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS biology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 165 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
165citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Contributions of the basolateral amygdala and nucleus accumbens to sustaining not just initiating cognitive effort.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

105 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Trevor T-J ChongMonash Institute of Cognitive and Clinical Neurosciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Matthew AppsDepartment of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Kathrin GiehlDepartment of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Annie SillenceDepartment of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Laura L GrimaDepartment of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-2940-4741
Masud HusainDepartment of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-6850-9255

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/M013596/1Wellcome Trust 098282
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In everyday life, we have to decide whether it is worth exerting effort to obtain rewards. Effort can be experienced in different domains, with some tasks requiring significant cognitive demand and others being more physically effortful. The motivation to exert effort for reward is highly subjective and varies considerably across the different domains of behaviour. However, very little is known about the computational or neural basis of how different effort costs are subjectively weighed against rewards. Is there a common, domain-general system of brain areas that evaluates all costs and benefits? Here, we used computational modelling and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to examine the mechanisms underlying value processing in both the cognitive and physical domains. Participants were trained on two novel tasks that parametrically varied either cognitive or physical effort. During fMRI, participants indicated their preferences between a fixed low-effort/low-reward option and a variable higher-effort/higher-reward offer for each effort domain. Critically, reward devaluation by both cognitive and physical effort was subserved by a common network of areas, including the dorsomedial and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, the intraparietal sulcus, and the anterior insula. Activity within these domain-general areas also covaried negatively with reward and positively with effort, suggesting an integration of these parameters within these areas. Additionally, the amygdala appeared to play a unique, domain-specific role in processing the value of rewards associated with cognitive effort. These results are the first to reveal the neurocomputational mechanisms underlying subjective cost-benefit valuation across different domains of effort and provide insight into the multidimensional nature of motivation.

Indexed as

Computer SimulationMagnetic Resonance ImagingPhysical ExertionAdultAmygdalaBrainChoice BehaviorCognitionFemaleHumansLogistic ModelsMaleModels, NeurologicalReaction TimeRewardRisk

Identifiers

PMID28234892
PMCPMC5325181

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.