ArticleFrontiers in behavioral neuroscience2021
Deliberative Decision-Making in Macaques Removes Reward-Driven Response Vigor.
Article in Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Most of our daily decisions are governed by one of two systems: an impulsive system driving instantaneous decisions and a deliberative system driving thoughtful ones. The impulsive system reacts to immediately available concrete rewards. In contrast, the deliberative system reacts to more delayed rewards and/or punishments, which imposes consideration of longer-term choice consequences. Contingency management for addiction treatment is hypothesized to engage deliberative processes. Ultimately, in both decision-making situations, an action is needed to enact the decision. Whether those actions differ in implementation is an open question whose answer could inform as to whether distinct neural systems are engaged. To explore whether there is evidence of separate mechanisms between deliberated and immediate choices, we trained monkeys to perform a decision-making task where they made a choice on a touch screen between two visual cues predicting different amounts of reward. In immediate choice (IC) trials, the cues appeared at the final response locations where subjects could immediately touch the chosen cue. In deliberated choice (DC) trials, compound cues appeared orthogonally to the response locations. After a delay, allowing for decision formation, an identifying cue component was displaced to the randomly assigned response locations, permitting subjects to reach for the chosen cue. Both trial types showed an effect of cue value on cue selection time. However, only IC trials showed an effect of the competing cue on response vigor (measured by movement duration) and a reach trajectory that deviated in the direction of the competing cue, suggesting a decision reexamination process. Reward modulation of response vigor implicates dopaminergic mechanisms. In DC trials, reach trajectories revealed a commitment to the chosen choice target, and reach vigor was not modulated by the value of the competing cue. Our results suggest that choice-action dynamics are shaped by competing offers only during instantaneous, impulsive choice. After a deliberated decision, choice-action dynamics are unaffected by the alternative offer cue, demonstrating a commitment to the choice. The potential relevance to contingency management is discussed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.