4.2 Article

Neural Substrates of the Impaired Effort Expenditure Decision Making in Schizophrenia

期刊

NEUROPSYCHOLOGY
卷 30, 期 6, 页码 685-696

出版社

AMER PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1037/neu0000284

关键词

effort expenditure for reward task; motivation; schizophrenia; fMRI

资金

  1. Strategic Priority Research Program (B) of the Chinese Academy of Sciences [XDB02030002]
  2. National Science Fund China [81088001, 91132701, 81571317, 31100747]
  3. Beijing Training Project for the Leading Talents in S T [Z151100000315020]
  4. Key Laboratory of Mental Health, Institute of Psychology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Unwillingness to expend more effort to pursue high value rewards has been associated with motivational anhedonia in schizophrenia (SCZ) and abnormal dopamine activity in the nucleus accumbens (NAcc). The authors hypothesized that dysfunction of the NAcc and the associated forebrain regions are involved in the impaired effort expenditure decision-making of SCZ. Method: A 2 (reward magnitude: low vs. high) x 3 (probability: 20% vs. 50% vs. 80%) event-related fMRI design in the effort-expenditure for reward task (EEfRT) was used to examine the neural response of 23 SCZ patients and 23 demographically matched control participants when the participants made effort expenditure decisions to pursue uncertain rewards. Results: SCZ patients were significantly less likely to expend high level of effort in the medium (50%) and high (80%) probability conditions than healthy controls. The neural response in the NAcc, the posterior cingulate gyrus and the left medial frontal gyrus in SCZ patients were weaker than healthy controls and did not linearly increase with an increase in reward magnitude and probability. Moreover, NAcc activity was positively correlated with the willingness to expend high-level effort and concrete consummatory pleasure experience. Conclusion: NAcc and posterior cingulate dysfunctions in SCZ patients may be involved in their impaired effort expenditure decision-making.

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

4.2
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