Differential modulation of cognitive control networks by monetary reward and punishment

Cubillo, Ana; Hare, Todd A.

doi:10.1093/scan/nsz006

Cited by 28 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 78 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In Experiment 3 on the other hand, losses were associated with better working memory performance only at the highest effort level (4-Back). These mixed findings concur with previous studies, some of which found no difference in performance between gain and loss conditions in a 3-Back task (Belayachi et al, 2015 ), while other studies found that loss incentives could even impair performance on other tasks (switch task, Stroop task, flanker task; Paschke et al, 2015 ; Carsten et al, 2019 ; Cubillo et al, 2019 ). Possibly, the effects of loss incentives may depend on the nature of the task (e.g., differentially affecting proactive vs. reactive control processes; Chiew and Braver, 2013 ; Botvinick and Braver, 2015 ).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Losses Motivate Cognitive Effort More Than Gains in Effort-Based Decision Making and Performance

Massar

Chen

et al. 2020

Front. Hum. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human behavior is more strongly driven by the motivation to avoid losses than to pursue gains (loss aversion). However, there is little research on how losses influence the motivation to exert effort. We compared the effects of loss and gain incentives on cognitive task performance and effort-based decision making. In three experiments, participants performed a cognitively effortful task under gain and loss conditions and made choices about effort expenditure in a decision-making task. Results consistently showed significant loss aversion in effort-based decision making. Participants were willing to invest more effort in the loss compared to the gain condition (i.e., perform a longer duration task: Experiments 1 and 2; or higher task load: Experiment 3). On the other hand, losses did not lead to improved performance (sustained attention), or higher physiological effort (pupil diameter) in Experiments 1 and 2. In Experiment 3, losses did enhance working memory performance, but only at the highest load level. Taken together, these results suggest that loss aversion motivates higher effort investment in effort-based decision-making, while the effect of loss aversion during a performance may depend on the task type or effort level.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Losses Motivate Cognitive Effort More Than Gains in Effort-Based Decision Making and Performance

Massar

Chen

et al. 2020

Front. Hum. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is the case that we cannot rule out that “gain” incentives would have had similar results in the present study; the complementary criticism applies to the majority of studies that have focused solely on gain incentives. Behavioral ( O’Brien and Hess, 2019 ) and neural (e.g., Paschke et al, 2015 ; Cubillo et al, 2019 ) evidence suggests that gain and loss operate through partially independent processes. However, this issue needs further examination, and in general, studies in this field would benefit from including both conditions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Losing Money and Motivation: Effects of Loss Incentives on Motivation and Metacognition in Younger and Older Adults

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Incentives are usually expected to increase motivation and cognitive control and to thereby improve performance. A small but growing number of studies have begun to investigate whether the effects of incentive on cognitive performance differ for younger vs. older adults. Most have used attention and cognitive control paradigms, trialwise implementation of incentive condition, and gain incentives (reward), with only a very few investigating the effects of loss incentives. The present study takes a complementary approach: We tested younger and older adults in a working memory paradigm with loss incentives implemented session-wide (between subjects). We also included self-report measures to ask how loss incentive affected participants' perceptions of the mental demand of the task, as well as their perceived effort, frustration, motivation, distraction, and metacognitive judgments of how well they had performed. This allowed us to test the disparate predictions of different theoretical views: the intuitive hypothesis that incentive should increase motivation and performance, the motivational shift proposal that older adults are especially motivated to avoid losses (Freund and Ebner, 2005), a heuristic "positivity effect" perspective that older adults ignore losses (Brassen et al., 2012; Williams et al., 2017), and a more nuanced view that suggests that when negative information is unavoidable and increases perceived costs, older adults may instead disengage from the situation (Charles, 2010; Hess, 2014). The results seemed most consistent with the more nuanced view of the positivity effect. While neither group showed incentive-related performance differences, both younger and older adults reported greater perceived demand and frustration under loss incentive, especially in the most challenging conditions. Loss incentive increased the accuracy of immediate metacognitive judgments, but reduced the accuracy of later, more global judgments of competency for older adults. Self-report measures suggested that the loss incentive manipulation was distracting to young adults and demotivating for older adults. The results suggest a need for caution in generalizing from existing studies to everyday life, and that additional studies parameterizing critical aspects of task design and incentive manipulation are needed to fully understand how incentives affect cognition and motivation in younger and older adults.

show abstract

“…Scenario 2 assumed a weak dissociation between the treatment of PG and PL, as to accommodate the manifolds studies reporting partially distinct neural substrates and behavioral effects of reward and punishments (e.g. Cubillo, Makwana, & Hare, 2019).…”

Section: Figurementioning

confidence: 99%

The role of the vestibular system in value attribution to positive and negative reinforcers

Blini

Tilikete

Chelazzi

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Somatic inputs originating from bioregulatory processes can guide cognition and behavior.One such bodily signal, mostly overlooked so far, is represented by visuo-vestibular coupling and its alteration, which in extreme cases may result in motion sickness. We argued that the inherently perturbed interoceptive state that follows can be a powerful determinant of human motivated behavior, resulting in a blunted response to appetitive stimuli and an exaggerated response to noxious ones. We sought to assess such differential impact of visuo-vestibular mismatches on value through a task involving conflict monitoring. We therefore administered to 42 healthy participants a modified version of the Flankers task, in which distractors (arrows, pointing in either a congruent or incongruent direction) signaled the availability of monetary incentives (gains, losses, or neutral trials). While performing the task, participants received either galvanic vestibular stimulation (GVS), or sham stimulation. We have found impaired behavioral performances when value, which was attached to task-irrelevant information, was at stake. Gains and losses, interestingly, dissociated, and only the latter caused enhanced interference costs in the task, suggesting that negative incentives may be more effective in capturing human attention than positive ones. Finally, we have found some weak evidence for GVS to further increase the processing of losses, as suggested by even larger interference costs in this condition. Results were, however, overall ambiguous, and suggest that much more research is needed to better understand the link between the vestibular system and motivation. Highlights Visuo-Vestibular mismatches may be important somatic markers affecting the evaluation of reinforcers; When attached to distractors, value information impairs behavioral performance for the task at hand;  Trials in which potential losses were at stake were associated with larger interference costs arising from conflicting information between the target and the flankers;

show abstract

Differential modulation of cognitive control networks by monetary reward and punishment

Cited by 28 publications

References 78 publications

Losses Motivate Cognitive Effort More Than Gains in Effort-Based Decision Making and Performance

Losses Motivate Cognitive Effort More Than Gains in Effort-Based Decision Making and Performance

Losing Money and Motivation: Effects of Loss Incentives on Motivation and Metacognition in Younger and Older Adults

The role of the vestibular system in value attribution to positive and negative reinforcers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About