The neural computation of inconsistent choice behavior

Kurtz-David, Vered; Persitz, Dotan; Webb, Ryan; Levy, Dino J.

doi:10.1038/s41467-019-09343-2

Cited by 44 publications

(92 citation statements)

References 69 publications

(114 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our results thus differ from a previously reported vmPFC baseline-shift additive effect in pleasantness ratings (Abitbol et al, 2015;Lopez-Persem et al, 2020). Altogether, our results indicate that part of the unspecified 'neural noise' driving fluctuations in choice consistency (Padoa-Schioppa, 2013;Kurtz-David et al, 2019;Webb et al, 2019) comes from the interaction between interoceptive self-related processes, indexed by neural monitoring of cardiac signals, and the neural encoding of subjective value. A more detailed mechanistic account of how responses to heartbeat during task preparation influence the subjective valuation process taking place about 1.5 second later remains to be established.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

Responses to heartbeats in ventromedial prefrontal cortex contribute to subjective preference-based decisions

Azzalini

Buot

Palminteri

et al. 2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Forrest Gump or Matrix? Choosing which movie you prefer is a subjective decision that entails self-reflection. While the neural underpinnings of valuation and choice have been extensively investigated, the contribution of self-related processes to subjective decisions has been largely overlooked. Self-related processes have been linked to a basic interoceptive biological mechanism, the neural monitoring of heartbeats, in particular in ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC), a region also involved in value encoding. We thus hypothesized a functional coupling between interoceptive self-related processes and the precision of value encoding in vmPFC. Human participants were presented with pairs of movie titles. They indicated either which movie they preferred, or performed a control objective visual discrimination that did not require self-reflection. Using magnetoencephalography, we measured heartbeat-evoked responses (HERs) before option presentation, and confirmed that HERs in vmPFC were larger when preparing to the subjective, self-related task. We retrieved the expected cortical value network during choice with time-resolved statistical modeling, and show that HERs before option presentation interacted in a multiplicative manner with value encoding during choice in vmPFC. The interaction was absent in the objective discrimination task, and could not be trivially explained neither by changes in cardiac activity nor by arousal fluctuations. The neural interaction between HERs and value encoding predicted preference-based choice consistency over time, accounting for both inter-individual differences and trial-to-trial fluctuations within individuals. Our results thus reveal a functional coupling in vmPFC between self-related interoceptive processes and subjective value encoding, which stabilizes the behavioral expression of long-term preferences.Significance statementDeciding whether you prefer Forrest Gump or Matrix is based on subjective values, which only you, the decision-maker, can estimate and compare, by asking yourself. Yet, how self-related processes influence subjective valuation is not known. We show that in ventromedial prefrontal cortex, an interoceptive self-related process, the neural response to heartbeats, influences the cortical representation of subjective value. The neural interaction between interoceptive self-related process and value encoding predicts choice consistency, i.e. whether you consistently prefer Forrest Gump over Matrix over time, thus contributing to the stable expression of long-lasting preferences that define, at least in part, our identity.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

Responses to heartbeats in ventromedial prefrontal cortex contribute to subjective preference-based decisions

Azzalini

Buot

Palminteri

et al. 2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, the importance of value-related regions for choice consistency finds additional support in the function brain imaging study of Kurtz-David et al (2019). Kurtz-David et al (2019) used the experimental task of Choi et al (2014) for a total of 108 trials. The study found that trialspecific choice inconsistency is correlated to functional activity in the ventro-medial prefrontal cortex, the anterior and the posterior cingulate cortex.…”

Section: Incomementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Few studies have tackled the question of how certain factors might influence choice consistency, which is especially relevant from a cognitive psychologist and neuroscientific point of view. A positive mention deserve the few studies investigating the neural underpinnings of choice inconsistency (Camille et al, 2011;Chung et al, 2017;Kalenscher et al, 2010;Kurtz-David et al, 2019), which suggest that value-encoding regions play a key role. Future studies should use a more theory-driven approach to identify moderators of choice consistency.…”

Section: Process Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Keeping a cool head at all times. What determines choice consistency?

Nitsch¹,

Kalenscher²

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many rational choice theories posit that rational decision makers assign subjective values to all available choice options and choose the option with highest subjective value. Choice options are usually composed of multiple attributes, e.g. healthiness and taste in dietary choice or risk and expected returns in financial choice. These attributes have to be integrated into a single subjective value. Subjective value maximizing choice requires choice consistency, i.e. consistent weighing of the choice attributes across choices. However, empirical work suggests that perfect choice consistency is often violated, for example when decision makers weigh choice attributes differently across multiple decisions. Some researchers propose to extend certain bounds of rationality or to abandon the concept of rationality as adherence to consistency principles altogether. A more conservative stance assumes that perfect consistency can be violated by decision makers in practice, but that consistency principles still can explain large parts of behavior. In a review of the recent literature, we identify factors for compromised consistency relative to baseline conditions. Broadly, we distinguish between undynamic trait factors and fluid state factors. We find evidence for an influence of age, education, intelligence, and neurological status. In contrast, choice consistency appears to be relatively robust to the influence of sex, personality traits, cognitive load, sleepiness and blood alcohol levels. We conclude, that, according to the current state of the literature, only fundamental differences in decision makers, that is, trait differences, have a significant impact on choice consistency. Keeping a cool head at all times. What determines choice consistency?Should you order one glass of champagne, a large Stein of Bavarian beer, or rather a nonalcoholic carafe of water? Choice theory posits that decision makers assign subjective values to all choice alternatives, rank order them according to their value, and choose the alternative with the highest value. The above example illustrates that choice alternatives are often composed of multiple attributes, e.g. magnitude (one glass, one carafe, one Stein), healthiness (alcoholic vs. non-alcoholic, sugar content etc.), subjective taste (the sourness of champagne vs. the bitterness of beer), cultural value or other components. Decision theory assumes that all of these attributes are integrated into a single subjective value. Importantly, the importance of taste as well as all other attributes is subjective and differs between individuals. Hence, in many decisions, there is no single best alternative. Instead, we have to deal with trade-offs of different choice attributes: In our diet we have to weigh taste, healthiness, magnitude or other factors. In financial decisions we have to weigh risk and expected returns, as well as the time until we can realize those returns. In such situations, our decisions depend on our individual preferences -so how can we measure decision making quality or r...

show abstract

“…Severity in these symptom domains and difficulty forming biases consistent with past experience have been associated with altered prefrontal and striatal activity and connectivity (Gold et al, 2008;Simon et al, 2010;Arrondo et al, 2015). Recent work by Kurtz-David et al (2019) showed that in healthy adults, severity of trial-bytrial inconsistency between expectations and responses was associated with greater activity in the ventromedial prefrontal and anterior cingulate cortex, but not the ventral striatum. These early findings suggest that noise in select prefrontal regions might represent trait-level risk for pathological behavior.…”

Section: Review Ofmentioning

confidence: 99%