Testing models at the neural level reveals how the brain computes subjective value.


Journal

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
ISSN: 1091-6490
Titre abrégé: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7505876

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
26 10 2021
Historique:
accepted: 10 09 2021
entrez: 23 10 2021
pubmed: 24 10 2021
medline: 15 12 2021
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Decisions are based on the subjective values of choice options. However, subjective value is a theoretical construct and not directly observable. Strikingly, distinct theoretical models competing to explain how subjective values are assigned to choice options often make very similar behavioral predictions, which poses a major difficulty for establishing a mechanistic, biologically plausible explanation of decision-making based on behavior alone. Here, we demonstrate that model comparison at the neural level provides insights into model implementation during subjective value computation even though the distinct models parametrically identify common brain regions as computing subjective value. We show that frontal cortical regions implement a model based on the statistical distributions of available rewards, whereas intraparietal cortex and striatum compute subjective value signals according to a model based on distortions in the representations of probabilities. Thus, better mechanistic understanding of how cognitive processes are implemented arises from model comparisons at the neural level, over and above the traditional approach of comparing models at the behavioral level alone.

Identifiants

pubmed: 34686596
pii: 2106237118
doi: 10.1073/pnas.2106237118
pmc: PMC8639327
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Subventions

Organisme : EPA
ID : EP-C-16-016
Pays : United States

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2021 the Author(s). Published by PNAS.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors declare no competing interest.

Références

Science. 2021 Jun 11;372(6547):1209-1214
pubmed: 34112693
Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2007 May;1104:35-53
pubmed: 17416921
Behav Processes. 2017 Nov;144:20-32
pubmed: 28827119
J Neurosci. 2008 Jul 30;28(31):7837-46
pubmed: 18667616
Neuropsychopharmacology. 2016 Oct;41(11):2658-67
pubmed: 27149935
Neuroimage. 2009 Jul 15;46(4):1004-17
pubmed: 19306932
Nat Rev Neurosci. 2008 Jul;9(7):545-56
pubmed: 18545266
Neuron. 2010 Nov 18;68(4):789-800
pubmed: 21092866
Neuroimage. 1999 Nov;10(5):607-19
pubmed: 10547338
Hear Res. 2018 Mar;360:92-106
pubmed: 29208336
PLoS One. 2011 Feb 15;6(2):e16838
pubmed: 21347239
Front Comput Neurosci. 2016 Dec 27;10:141
pubmed: 28082892
Neuroimage. 2011 Oct 15;58(4):1139-49
pubmed: 21763444
J Neurosci. 2011 Oct 12;31(41):14693-707
pubmed: 21994386
Nature. 2020 Jun;582(7810):84-88
pubmed: 32483374
J Neurophysiol. 2011 Nov;106(5):2415-22
pubmed: 21849610
Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2012 Dec;22(6):1027-38
pubmed: 22766486
Q J Exp Psychol A. 2005 Feb;58(2):193-233
pubmed: 15903115
Science. 2007 Jan 26;315(5811):515-8
pubmed: 17255512
Wiley Interdiscip Rev Cogn Sci. 2010 Jul;1(4):501-510
pubmed: 26271497
J Neurosci. 2016 Sep 28;36(39):10002-15
pubmed: 27683898
J Neurosci. 2008 Mar 12;28(11):2745-52
pubmed: 18337404
Neuroimage. 2013 Nov 1;81:431-440
pubmed: 23684860
J Neurosci. 2015 Feb 18;35(7):3146-54
pubmed: 25698750
Neuroimage. 2010 Jan 1;49(1):217-24
pubmed: 19732837
PLoS Comput Biol. 2015 Jun 18;11(6):e1004237
pubmed: 26086934
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016 Jul 12;113(28):7900-5
pubmed: 27357684
PLoS Comput Biol. 2014 Jan;10(1):e1003441
pubmed: 24465198
Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2008 Dec;8(4):363-74
pubmed: 19033235
Neuroimage. 2013 Aug 1;76:412-27
pubmed: 23507394
Trends Cogn Sci. 2009 Dec;13(12):517-23
pubmed: 19836292
J Neurosci. 2009 Feb 18;29(7):2231-7
pubmed: 19228976
J Neurophysiol. 2007 Feb;97(2):1621-32
pubmed: 17122317
Sci Adv. 2016 Oct 19;2(10):e1600992
pubmed: 27774513
Nat Neurosci. 2012 Jan 08;15(3):470-6, S1-3
pubmed: 22231429

Auteurs

Tony B Williams (TB)

Zurich Center for Neuroeconomics, Department of Economics, University of Zurich 8006 Zurich, Switzerland.
Delta Nine Behavioral Economics, Bellevue, WA 98004.

Christopher J Burke (CJ)

Zurich Center for Neuroeconomics, Department of Economics, University of Zurich 8006 Zurich, Switzerland.

Stephan Nebe (S)

Zurich Center for Neuroeconomics, Department of Economics, University of Zurich 8006 Zurich, Switzerland.

Kerstin Preuschoff (K)

Zurich Center for Neuroeconomics, Department of Economics, University of Zurich 8006 Zurich, Switzerland.
Geneva Finance Research Institute, University of Geneva, Geneva 1211, Switzerland; and.

Ernst Fehr (E)

Zurich Center for Neuroeconomics, Department of Economics, University of Zurich 8006 Zurich, Switzerland.

Philippe N Tobler (PN)

Zurich Center for Neuroeconomics, Department of Economics, University of Zurich 8006 Zurich, Switzerland; phil.tobler@econ.uzh.ch.
Zurich Center for Neuroscience, University of Zurich and ETH Zurich, Zurich 8057, Switzerland.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH