Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30607834›Full record

ArticleCognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience2019

Task-specific prioritization of reward and effort information: Novel insights from behavior and computational modeling.

Eliana Vassena, James Deraeve, William H Alexander

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Reward systems, cognition, and emotion: Introduction to the special issue.Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience · 2019
    Article
  10. 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

3 authors.

Eliana VassenaDonders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University Nijmegen, Kapittelweg 29, 6525 EN, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. e.vassena@donders.ru.nl.ORCID 0000-0002-5761-6813
James DeraeveDepartment of Experimental Psychology, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
William H AlexanderDepartment of Experimental Psychology, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Efficient integration of environmental information is critical in goal-directed behavior. Motivational information regarding potential rewards and costs (such as required effort) affects performance and decisions whether to engage in a task. While it is generally acknowledged that costs and benefits are integrated to determine the level of effort to be exerted, how this integration occurs remains an open question. Computational models of high-level cognition postulate serial processing of task-relevant features and demonstrate that prioritizing the processing of one feature over the other can affect performance. We investigated the hypothesis that motivationally relevant task features also may be processed serially, that people may prioritize either benefit or cost information, and that artificially controlling prioritization may be beneficial for performance (by improving task-accuracy) and decision-making (by boosting the willingness to engage in effortful trials). We manipulated prioritization by altering order of presentation of effort and reward cues in two experiments involving preparation for effortful performance and effort-based decision-making. We simulated the tasks with a recent model of prefrontal cortex (Alexander & Brown in Neural Computation, 27(11), 2354-2410, 2015). Human behavior was in line with model predictions: prioritizing reward vs. effort differentially affected performance vs. decision. Prioritizing reward was beneficial for performance, showing striking increase in accuracy, especially when a large reward was offered for a difficult task. Counterintuitively (yet predicted by the model), prioritizing reward resulted in a blunted reward effect on decisions. Conversely, prioritizing effort increased reward impact on decision to engage. These results highlight the importance of controlling prioritization of motivational cues in neuroimaging studies.

Indexed as

Decision MakingModels, PsychologicalMotivationPsychomotor PerformanceRewardCuesFemaleHumansMalePhotic StimulationYoung AdultComputational modelingDecision-makingEffortMotivationPrioritizationRewardTask-performance

Identifiers

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.