Reduced Behavioral and Neural Activation in Stimulant Users to Different Error Rates during Decision Making

Paulus, Martin P.; Lovero, Kathryn L.; Wittmann, Marc; Leland, David S.

doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2007.09.007

Cited by 39 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, a common feature of addiction is an increased sensitivity to reward and a diminished sensitivity to punishment that manifests as a failure to learn from or disregard negative or aversive outcomes (Bechara et al, 2002;Franken et al, 2005). Recent work has consistently demonstrated that insular cortex dysfunction is associated with addiction (Paulus, 2007;Goldstein et al, 2009;Naqvi and Bechara, 2009), particularly poor decision making that may contribute to continued drug taking in the face of significant negative consequences (Paulus et al, 2005a(Paulus et al, , 2008. The opposite pattern, increased insula activity in response to punishment and heightened sensitivity to learning from aversive outcomes (Paulus et al, 2005b;Samanez-Larkin et al, 2008), is a feature of general anxiety disorder and other psychiatric conditions that feature anxiety such as obsessive-compulsive disorder and posttraumatic stress disorder.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Punishing an Error Improves Learning: The Influence of Punishment Magnitude on Error-Related Neural Activity and Subsequent Learning

Hester¹,

Murphy²,

Brown³

et al. 2010

J. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Punishing an error to shape subsequent performance is a major tenet of individual and societal level behavioral interventions. Recent work examining error-related neural activity has identified that the magnitude of activity in the posterior medial frontal cortex (pMFC) is predictive of learning from an error, whereby greater activity in this region predicts adaptive changes in future cognitive performance. It remains unclear how punishment influences error-related neural mechanisms to effect behavior change, particularly in key regions such as pMFC, which previous work has demonstrated to be insensitive to punishment. Using an associative learning task that provided monetary reward and punishment for recall performance, we observed that when recall errors were categorized by subsequent performance-whether the failure to accurately recall a number-location association was corrected at the next presentation of the same trial-the magnitude of error-related pMFC activity predicted future correction. However, the pMFC region was insensitive to the magnitude of punishment an error received and it was the left insula cortex that predicted learning from the most aversive outcomes. These findings add further evidence to the hypothesis that error-related pMFC activity may reflect more than a prediction error in representing the value of an outcome. The novel role identified here for the insular cortex in learning from punishment appears particularly compelling for our understanding of psychiatric and neurologic conditions that feature both insular cortex dysfunction and a diminished capacity for learning from negative feedback or punishment.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Punishing an Error Improves Learning: The Influence of Punishment Magnitude on Error-Related Neural Activity and Subsequent Learning

Hester¹,

Murphy²,

Brown³

et al. 2010

J. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, in a financial decision-making task that involves choices between safe 'bonds' and risky 'stocks' 53 , when insular activation is relatively high before a decision, subjects tend to make risk-averse mistakes; that is, they chose the bonds, even though the stocks were an objectively superior choice. Insular activation is also robustly observed when decision-making impairments lead to increased risk 54,55 . Insular activation may reflect that region's putative role in representing somatic states that can be used to simulate the potential negative consequences of actions 56,57 , as when people reject unfair offers in an economic game at substantial cost to themselves 58 .…”

Section: Neuroeconomics Of Decision Making Under Uncertaintymentioning

confidence: 95%

Risky business: the neuroeconomics of decision making under uncertainty

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many decisions involve uncertainty, or imperfect knowledge about how choices lead to outcomes. Colloquial notions of uncertainty, particularly when describing a decision as 'risky', often carry connotations of potential danger as well. Gambling on a long shot, whether a horse at the racetrack or a foreign oil company in a hedge fund, can have negative consequences, but the impact of uncertainty on decision making extends beyond gambling. Indeed, uncertainty in some form pervades nearly all our choices in daily life. Stepping into traffic to hail a cab, braving an ice storm to be the first at work, or dating the boss's son or daughter also offer potentially great windfalls, at the expense of surety. We continually face trade-offs between options that promise safety and others that offer an uncertain potential for jackpot or bust. When mechanisms for dealing with uncertain outcomes fail, as in mental disorders such as problem gambling or addiction, the results can be disastrous. Thus, understanding decision making-indeed, understanding behavior itselfrequires knowing how the brain responds to and uses information about uncertainty.

show abstract

“…Neuroimaging studies have identified an association between these executive control deficits and dysfunction in prefrontal (particularly dorsolateral and inferior frontal), anterior cingulate, and orbitofrontal regions (Bolla et al 2001(Bolla et al , 2003(Bolla et al , 2004Goldstein et al 2001;Franklin et al 2002;Paulus et al 2002;Kaufman et al 2003;Hester and Garavan 2004;Gruber and Yurgelun-Todd 2005;London et al 2005;Tapert et al 2007;Paulus et al 2008). Individual studies have also identified changes within subcortical (thalamus and basal ganglia), parietal, temporal, and cerebellar regions, although these findings are less consistent.…”

Section: Executive Control Dysfunction In Addicted Drug Usersmentioning

confidence: 99%