57
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Behavioral Modeling of Human Choices Reveals Dissociable Effects of Physical Effort and Temporal Delay on Reward Devaluation

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          There has been considerable interest from the fields of biology, economics, psychology, and ecology about how decision costs decrease the value of rewarding outcomes. For example, formal descriptions of how reward value changes with increasing temporal delays allow for quantifying individual decision preferences, as in animal species populating different habitats, or normal and clinical human populations. Strikingly, it remains largely unclear how humans evaluate rewards when these are tied to energetic costs, despite the surge of interest in the neural basis of effort-guided decision-making and the prevalence of disorders showing a diminished willingness to exert effort (e.g., depression). One common assumption is that effort discounts reward in a similar way to delay. Here we challenge this assumption by formally comparing competing hypotheses about effort and delay discounting. We used a design specifically optimized to compare discounting behavior for both effort and delay over a wide range of decision costs (Experiment 1). We then additionally characterized the profile of effort discounting free of model assumptions (Experiment 2). Contrary to previous reports, in both experiments effort costs devalued reward in a manner opposite to delay, with small devaluations for lower efforts, and progressively larger devaluations for higher effort-levels (concave shape). Bayesian model comparison confirmed that delay-choices were best predicted by a hyperbolic model, with the largest reward devaluations occurring at shorter delays. In contrast, an altogether different relationship was observed for effort-choices, which were best described by a model of inverse sigmoidal shape that is initially concave. Our results provide a novel characterization of human effort discounting behavior and its first dissociation from delay discounting. This enables accurate modelling of cost-benefit decisions, a prerequisite for the investigation of the neural underpinnings of effort-guided choice and for understanding the deficits in clinical disorders characterized by behavioral inactivity.

          Author Summary

          One of the main functions of the brain is to select sequences of actions that lead to rewarding outcomes (e.g., food). However, such rewards are often not readily available; instead physical effort may be required to obtain them, or their arrival may be delayed. The ability to integrate the costs and benefits of potential courses of action is severely impaired in several common disorders, such as depression and schizophrenia. Mathematical models can describe how individuals depreciate rewards based on the costs associated with them. For example, models of how a reward loses appeal with increasing temporal delays can provide individual impulsivity scores, and can serve as a predictor of financial mismanagement. To date, there is no established model to describe accurately how humans depreciate rewards when obtaining them requires physical effort. This is surprising given the prevalence of disorders related to a diminished willingness to exert effort. Here we derive a biologically plausible mathematical model that can describe how healthy humans make decisions tied to physical efforts. We show that effort and delay influence reward valuation in different ways, contrary to common assumptions. Our model will be important for characterizing decision-making deficits in clinical disorders characterized by behavioral inactivity.

          Related collections

          Most cited references60

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Worth the ‘EEfRT’? The Effort Expenditure for Rewards Task as an Objective Measure of Motivation and Anhedonia

          Background Of the putative psychopathological endophenotypes in major depressive disorder (MDD), the anhedonic subtype is particularly well supported. Anhedonia is generally assumed to reflect aberrant motivation and reward responsivity. However, research has been limited by a lack of objective measures of reward motivation. We present the Effort-Expenditure for Rewards Task (EEfRT or “effort”), a novel behavioral paradigm as a means of exploring effort-based decision-making in humans. Using the EEfRT, we test the hypothesis that effort-based decision-making is related to trait anhedonia. Methods/Results 61 undergraduate students participated in the experiment. Subjects completed self-report measures of mood and trait anhedonia, and completed the EEfRT. Across multiple analyses, we found a significant inverse relationship between anhedonia and willingness to expend effort for rewards. Conclusions These findings suggest that anhedonia is specifically associated with decreased motivation for rewards, and provide initial validation for the EEfRT as a laboratory-based behavioral measure of reward motivation and effort-based decision-making in humans.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Effort-based decision-making in major depressive disorder: a translational model of motivational anhedonia.

            Anhedonia is a core feature of major depressive disorder (MDD), but the precise nature of anhedonic symptoms is unknown. Whereas anhedonia has traditionally been viewed as a deficit in the experience of pleasure, more recent evidence suggests that reduced anticipation and motivation may also be a core feature of this symptom. Here, we provide data from a study in MDD patients and healthy controls using a translational measure of reward motivation, the Effort Expenditure for Rewards Task (EEfRT or "effort"). This task offers subjects a series of trials where they may choose to expend more or less effort for the opportunity to win varying amounts of monetary rewards. We found that MDD patients were less willing to expend effort for rewards than controls. Additionally, we observed that patients were less able to effectively use information about magnitude and probability of rewards to guide their choice behavior. Finally, within the MDD patient group, duration of the current episode was a significant negative predictor of EEfRT task performance. These findings offer novel support for theoretical models proposing that anhedonia in MDD may reflect specific impairments in motivation and reward-based decision-making. PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Neural computations associated with goal-directed choice.

              In goal-directed decision-making, animals choose between actions that are associated with different reward outcomes (e.g., foods) and with different costs (e.g., effort). Rapid advances have been made over the past few years in our understanding of the computations associated with goal-directed choices, and of how those computations are implemented in the brain. We review some important findings, with an emphasis on computational models, human fMRI, and monkey neurophysiology studies. (c) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS Comput Biol
                PLoS Comput. Biol
                plos
                ploscomp
                PLoS Computational Biology
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1553-734X
                1553-7358
                27 March 2015
                March 2015
                : 11
                : 3
                : e1004116
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Sobell Department of Motor Neuroscience and Movement Disorders, UCL Institute of Neurology, University College London (UCL), London, United Kingdom
                [2 ]Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging, University College London (UCL), London, United Kingdom
                [3 ]Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
                University of Pittsburgh, UNITED STATES
                Author notes

                The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Conceived and designed the experiments: MCK SWK SB. Performed the experiments: MCK ACS SWK SB. Analyzed the data: MCK. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: WDP. Wrote the paper: MCK SWK WDP SB.

                Article
                PCOMPBIOL-D-13-01289
                10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004116
                4376637
                25816114
                c8c9cd78-ea0f-45be-be1a-f7b2bc2532cd
                Copyright @ 2015

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited

                History
                : 19 July 2013
                : 7 January 2015
                Page count
                Figures: 4, Tables: 2, Pages: 31
                Funding
                This work was supported by the Wellcome Trust ( http://www.wellcome.ac.uk; MCKF.: 086120/Z/08/Z, SWK: 096689/Z/11/Z, WP: 091593/Z/10/), the European Research Council ( erc.europa.eu; SB: ActSelectContext, 260424), and the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council ( www.bbsrc.ac.uk; SB). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
                Categories
                Research Article

                Quantitative & Systems biology
                Quantitative & Systems biology

                Comments

                Comment on this article