4.7 Article

Neurons in the Rat Anterior Cingulate Cortex Dynamically Encode Cost-Benefit in a Spatial Decision-Making Task

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE
卷 30, 期 22, 页码 7705-7713

出版社

SOC NEUROSCIENCE
DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1273-10.2010

关键词

-

资金

  1. Royal Society of New Zealand

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Optimal decision-making often requires an assessment of the costs and benefits associated with each available course of action. Previous studies have shown that lesions to the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) impair cost-benefit decision-making in laboratory animals, but the neural mechanisms underlying the deficit are not well understood. We recorded from ACC neurons in freely moving rats as they performed a spatial decision-making task whereby, in the baseline configuration 2:6B, rats could pursue two or six food pellets, the latter obtained by climbing a barrier [high cost, high reward (HCHR)]. In this configuration, the mean percentage of HCHR choices was 69 +/- 4%, and a substantial portion of ACC neurons (63%) exhibited significantly higher firing for one goal trajectory versus the other; for 94% of these cells, higher firing was associated with the HCHR option. This HCHR bias was not simply attributable to the larger reward, the barrier, or behavioral preference. In intersession and intrasession manipulations involving at least one barrier (2:6B, 2B:6B, and 2:2B), ACC activity rapidly adapted and was consistently biased toward the economically advantageous option relative to the configuration. Interestingly, when only a difference in reward magnitude was presented (2:6, no barrier, HCHR choices of 84 +/- 4%), ACC activity was minimal and nonbiased. One interpretation of our data is that the ACC encodes a relative, integrated cost-benefit representation of available choice options that is biased toward the better option in terms of effort/outcome ratio. This representation may be specifically recruited when an assessment of reward and effort is required to optimally perform a task.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据