4.5 Article

Brain regions involved in the learning and application of reward rules in a two-deck gambling task

期刊

NEUROPSYCHOLOGIA
卷 48, 期 5, 页码 1438-1446

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.01.012

关键词

Decision-making; Rule learning; fMRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Decision-making involves the ability to choose between competing actions that are associated with uncertain benefits and penalties. The Iowa Gambling Task (IGT), which mimics real-life decision-making, involves learning a reward-punishment rule over multiple trials. Patients with damage to ventromedial prefrontal cortex (VMPFC) show deficits learning these rules, although this performance deficit is not exclusively associated with VMPFC damage. In this study, we used functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) to study the roles of prefrontal cortex regions involved in rule learning and rule application in healthy adults using an adapted version of the Iowa Gambling Task. Participants (N = 20) were asked to infer rules over series of 16 trials in a two-deck card game. Rewards were given on each trial and punishment was unpredictable. For half of the series, those decks that gave high rewards were also better decks in the long run. For the other half of the series, the decks that gave low rewards were better decks in the long run. Behaviorally, participants started to differentiate between advantageous and disadvantageous decks after approximately four/six trials, and learning occurred faster for high-reward decks. Lateral PFC (lat-PFC) and Anterior Cingulate Coretex (ACC)/pre-supplementary motor area (pre-SMA) were most active for early decisions, whereas medial orbital frontal cortex (med-OFC) was most active for decisions made later in the series. These results suggest that lat-PFC and ACC/pre-SMA are important for directing behavior towards long-term goals, whereas med-OFC represents reward values towards which behavior should be directed. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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