Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35122189›Full record

ArticleJournal of computational neuroscience2022

Extrinsic rewards, intrinsic rewards, and non-optimal behavior.

Mousa Karayanni, Israel Nelken

Abstract readEditorial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of computational neuroscience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. 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

2 authors.

Mousa KarayanniEdmond and Lily Safra Center for Brain Sciences, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel. mousa.karayanni@mail.huji.ac.il.ORCID 0000-0002-5408-4559
Israel NelkenEdmond and Lily Safra Center for Brain Sciences, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel.

Funding

CRCNS BSF-NSF program 2016688Israel Science Foundation 1126/18
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The optimality of behavior in experimental settings is usually determined with respect to an extrinsic reward defined by the experimenters. However, actions that do not lead to reward are ubiquitous in many species and in many experimental paradigms. Modern research on decision processes commonly treat non-optimal behaviors as noise, often excluding from analysis animals that do not reach behavioral performance criteria. However, non-optimal behaviors can be a window on important brain processes. Here we explore the evidence that non-optimal behaviors are the consequence of intrinsically motivated actions, related to drives that are different from that of obtaining extrinsic reward. One way of operationally characterizing these drives is by postulating intrinsic rewards associated with them. Behaviors that are apparently non-optimal can be interpreted as the consequence of optimal decisions whose goal is to optimize a combination of intrinsic and extrinsic rewards. We review intrinsic rewards that have been discussed in the literature, and suggest ways of testing their existence and role in shaping animal behavior.

Indexed as

Models, NeurologicalRewardAnimalsBehavior, AnimalBrainMotivationCuriosityDecision makingExplorationIntrinsic motivationOptimal behaviourReward processing

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.