4.7 Article

Learning To Minimize Efforts versus Maximizing Rewards: Computational Principles and Neural Correlates

Journal

JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE
Volume 34, Issue 47, Pages 15621-15630

Publisher

SOC NEUROSCIENCE
DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1350-14.2014

Keywords

computational modeling; effort; reinforcement learning; reward; ventromedial prefrontal cortex

Categories

Funding

  1. European Research Council (ERC-BioMotiv)
  2. Investissements d'Avenir program [ANR-10-IAIHU-06]
  3. Ecole de Neurosciences de Paris
  4. Neuropole de Recherche Francilien

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The mechanisms of reward maximization have been extensively studied at both the computational and neural levels. By contrast, little is known about how the brain learns to choose the options that minimize action cost. In principle, the brain could have evolved a general mechanism that applies the same learning rule to the different dimensions of choice options. To test this hypothesis, we scanned healthy human volunteers while they performed a probabilistic instrumental learning task that varied in both the physical effort and the monetary outcome associated with choice options. Behavioral data showed that the same computational rule, using prediction errors to update expectations, could account for both reward maximization and effort minimization. However, these learning-related variables were encoded in partially dissociable brain areas. In line with previous findings, the ventromedial prefrontal cortex was found to positively represent expected and actual rewards, regardless of effort. A separate network, encompassing the anterior insula, the dorsal anterior cingulate, and the posterior parietal cortex, correlated positively with expected and actual efforts. These findings suggest that the same computational rule is applied by distinct brain systems, depending on the choice dimension-cost or benefit-that has to be learned.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available