ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2025
Cognitive effort devaluation and the salience network: a computational model of amotivation in depression.
Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Ego-Tucking: a novel psychological mechanism of strategic retrenchment and resilience among Chinese youth.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Amotivation in depression is linked to impaired reinforcement learning and effort expenditure via the dopaminergic reward pathway. To understand its computational and neural basis, we modeled incentive, temporal and cognitive burden effects, identifying key components and brain networks of cost-benefit valuation. Methods: Data from 43 psychotropic-free individuals (31 non- or minimally depressed individuals), including Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), Apathy Evaluation Scale (AES), n-back task performance, and resting-state fMRI, were analyzed. Cost-benefit valuation was modeled using loss aversion, learning, temporal, and cognitive effort discounting factors. Model fitting and comparison (two-learning rate Results: Overall, greater 2-back than 0-back accuracy occurred in longer, positively incentivized tasks. Non- or minimally depressed individuals showed accuracy difference by N-back load at higher rewards, with divergence between reward and loss tasks at higher incentive and longer lengths. The two-temporal discounting model best explained these results. Cognitive effort discounting specifically predicted amotivation scores, derived from BDI and AES, and correlated with AIC-anterior mid cingulate cortex (aMCC) functional connectivity. Conclusions: Our findings demonstrate amotivation is specifically associated with cognitive effort devaluation in a cost-benefit analysis incorporating loss aversion, incentive learning, temporal discounting, and cognitive effort discounting. Modulation of effort valuation via the AIC-aMCC network suggests a potential treatment target.
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.