Article

Neural processing of reward magnitude under varying attentional demands.

Department of Neurology and Centre for Advanced Imaging, Otto-von-Guericke-University, Leipziger Str. 44, 39120 Magdeburg, Germany.
Brain research (Impact Factor: 2.83). 02/2011; 1383:218-29. DOI: 10.1016/j.brainres.2011.01.095
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Central to the organization of behavior is the ability to represent the magnitude of a prospective reward and the costs related to obtaining it. Therein, reward-related neural activations are discounted in dependence of the effort required to resolve a given task. Varying attentional demands of the task might however affect reward-related neural activations. Here we employed fMRI to investigate the neural representation of expected values during a monetary incentive delay task with varying attentional demands. Following a cue, indicating at the same time the difficulty (hard/easy) and the reward magnitude (high/low) of the upcoming trial, subjects performed an attention task and subsequently received feedback about their monetary reward. Consistent with previous results, activity in anterior-cingulate, insular/orbitofrontal and mesolimbic regions co-varied with the anticipated reward-magnitude, but also with the attentional requirements of the task. These activations occurred contingent on action-execution and resembled the response time pattern of the subjects. In contrast, cue-related activations, signaling the forthcoming task-requirements, were only observed within attentional control structures. These results suggest that anticipated reward-magnitude and task-related attentional demands are concurrently processed in partially overlapping neural networks of anterior-cingulate, insular/orbitofrontal, and mesolimbic regions.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Christian Michael Stoppel, Jul 25, 2014
0 Followers
 · 
116 Views
  • Source
    • "If this had been merely an effect of expected reward value, the low-difficulty reward trials should have triggered the largest CNV wave. An important difference to the earlier neuroeconomic experiments was that in the present study participants had to start preparing for the upcoming task in response to the cue, which in our opinion relies on a neural network that overlaps with reward-related processes (see also Stoppel et al., 2011). Subsequent to the preparation phase, the early perceptual processing of the target was not affected by the reward or difficulty manipulation , which is consistent with earlier reports (Baines et al., 2011; Hughes et al., 2012) that could not find an early reward impact in the target P1– N1 component in their cueing paradigms. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Recently, attempts have been made to disentangle the neural underpinnings of preparatory processes related to reward and attention. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) research showed that neural activity related to the anticipation of reward and to attentional demands invokes neural activity patterns featuring large-scale overlap, along with some differences and interactions. Due to the limited temporal resolution of fMRI, however, the temporal dynamics of these processes remain unclear. Here, we report an event-related potentials (ERP) study in which cued attentional demands and reward prospect were combined in a factorial design. Results showed that reward prediction dominated early cue processing, as well as the early and later parts of the contingent negative variation (CNV) slow-wave ERP component that has been associated with task-preparation processes. Moreover these reward-related electrophysiological effects correlated across participants with response-time speeding on reward-prospect trials. In contrast, cued attentional demands affected only the later part of the CNV, with the highest amplitudes following cues predicting high-difficulty potential-reward targets, thus suggesting maximal task preparation when the task requires it and entails reward prospect. Consequently, we suggest that task-preparation processes triggered by reward can arise earlier, and potentially more directly, than strategic top-down aspects of preparation based on attentional demands.
    NeuroImage 09/2013; 84. DOI:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.09.039 · 6.36 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To explain human financial risk taking, economic, and finance theories typically refer to the mathematical properties of financial options, whereas psychological theories have emphasized the influence of emotion and cognition on choice. From a neuroscience perspective, choice emanates from a dynamic multicomponential process. Recent technological advances in neuroimaging have made it possible for researchers to separately visualize perceptual input, intermediate processing, and motor output. An affective neuroscience account of financial risk taking thus might illuminate affective mediators that bridge the gap between statistical input and choice output. To test this hypothesis, we conducted a quantitative meta-analysis (via activation likelihood estimate or ALE) of functional magnetic resonance imaging experiments that focused on neural responses to financial options with varying statistical moments (i.e., mean, variance, skewness). Results suggested that different statistical moments elicit both common and distinct patterns of neural activity. Across studies, high versus low mean had the highest probability of increasing ventral striatal activity, but high versus low variance had the highest probability of increasing anterior insula activity. Further, high versus low skewness had the highest probability of increasing ventral striatal activity. Since ventral striatal activity has been associated with positive aroused affect (e.g., excitement), whereas anterior insular activity has been associated with negative aroused affect (e.g., anxiety) or general arousal, these findings are consistent with the notion that statistical input influences choice output by eliciting anticipatory affect. The findings also imply that neural activity can be used to predict financial risk taking - both when it conforms to and violates traditional models of choice.
    Frontiers in Neuroscience 11/2012; 6:159. DOI:10.3389/fnins.2012.00159 · 3.70 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Dopamine has been implicated in the fine-tuning of complex cognitive and motor function and also in the anticipation of future rewards. This dual function of dopamine suggests that dopamine might be involved in the generation of active motivated behavior. The DRD2 TaqIA polymorphism of the dopamine D2 receptor gene (rs1800497) has previously been suggested to affect striatal function with carriers of the less common A1 allele exhibiting reduced striatal D2 receptor density and increased risk for addiction. Here we aimed to investigate the influences of DRD2 TaqIA genotype on the modulation of interference processing by reward and punishment. Forty-six young, healthy volunteers participated in a behavioral experiment, and 32 underwent functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Participants performed a flanker task with a motivation manipulation (monetary reward, monetary loss, neither, or both). Reaction times (RTs) were shorter in motivated flanker trials, irrespective of congruency. In the fMRI experiment motivation was associated with reduced prefrontal activation during incongruent vs. congruent flanker trials, possibly reflecting increased processing efficiency. DRD2 TaqIA genotype did not affect overall RTs, but interacted with motivation on the congruency-related RT differences, with A1 carriers showing smaller interference effects to reward alone and A2 homozygotes exhibiting a specific interference reduction during combined reward (REW) and punishment trials (PUN). In fMRI, anterior cingulate activity showed a similar pattern of genotype-related modulation. Additionally, A1 carriers showed increased anterior insula activation relative to A2 homozygotes. Our results point to a role for genetic variations of the dopaminergic system in individual differences of cognition-motivation interaction.
    Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 06/2013; 7:250. DOI:10.3389/fnhum.2013.00250 · 2.90 Impact Factor
Show more