4.0 Article

Characterization of reward and effort mechanisms in apathy

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYSIOLOGY-PARIS
卷 109, 期 1-3, 页码 16-26

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jphysparis.2014.04.002

关键词

Motivation; Decision-making; Action Initiation; Effort discounting; Apathy

资金

  1. Wellcome Trust

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Apathy is a common but poorly understood condition with a wide societal impact observed in several brain disorders as well as, to some extent, in the normal population. Hence the need for better characterization of the underlying mechanisms. The processes by which individuals decide to attribute physical effort to obtain rewards might be particularly relevant to relate to apathy traits. Here, we designed two paradigms to assess individual differences in physical effort production and effort-based decision-making and their relation to apathy in healthy people. Apathy scores were measured using a modified version of the Lille Apathy Rating Scale, suitable for use in a non-clinical population. In the first study, apathy scores were correlated with the degree to which stake (reward on offer) and difficulty level impacts on physical effort production. Individuals with relatively high apathy traits showed an increased modulation of effort while more motivated individuals generally exerted greater force across different levels of stake. To clarify the underlying mechanisms for this behavior, we designed a second task that allows independent titration of stake and effort levels for which subjects are willing to engage in an effortful response to obtain a reward. Our results suggest that apathy traits in the normal population are related to the way reward subjectively affects the estimation of effort costs, and more particularly manifest as decreased willingness to exert effort when rewards are small, or below threshold. The tasks we introduce here may provide useful tools to further investigate apathy in clinical populations. (C) 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

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

4.0
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