Dissociating Valuation and Saliency Signals during Decision-Making

Litt, Ab; Plaßmann, Hilke; Shiv, Baba; Rangel, Antonio

doi:10.1093/cercor/bhq065

Cited by 239 publications

(246 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

211

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Specifically, the authors aim to investigate how ambiguity in outcome feedback is reflected in brain activity. Two major dimensions that characterize outcome feedback are valence and magnitude (Litt, Plassmann, Shiv, & Rangel, 2011; Yeung & Sanfey, 2004). The valence dimension indicates whether a stimulus is desirable, which is positive for rewards and negative for punishments (Litt et al., 2011; Paton, Belova, Morrison, & Salzman, 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Two major dimensions that characterize outcome feedback are valence and magnitude (Litt, Plassmann, Shiv, & Rangel, 2011; Yeung & Sanfey, 2004). The valence dimension indicates whether a stimulus is desirable, which is positive for rewards and negative for punishments (Litt et al., 2011; Paton, Belova, Morrison, & Salzman, 2006). On the other hand, the magnitude dimension indicates the size or degree of rewards or punishments, depending on whether the valence is positive or negative (Goyer, Woldorff, & Huettel, 2008; Gu et al., 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Valence and magnitude ambiguity in feedback processing

Xue

Broster

et al. 2017

Brain and Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundOutcome feedback which indicates behavioral consequences are crucial for reinforcement learning and environmental adaptation. Nevertheless, outcome information in daily life is often totally or partially ambiguous. Studying how people interpret this kind of information would provide important knowledge about the human evaluative system.MethodsThis study concentrates on the neural processing of partially ambiguous feedback, that is, either its valence or magnitude is unknown to participants. To address this topic, we sequentially presented valence and magnitude information; electroencephalography (EEG) response to each kind of presentation was recorded and analyzed. The event‐related potential components feedback‐related negativity (FRN) and P3 were used as indices of neural activity.ResultsConsistent with previous literature, the FRN elicited by ambiguous valence was not significantly different from that elicited by negative valence. On the other hand, the FRN elicited by ambiguous magnitude was larger than both the large and small magnitude, indicating the motivation to seek unambiguous magnitude information. The P3 elicited by ambiguous valence and ambiguous magnitude was not significantly different from that elicited by negative valence and small magnitude, respectively, indicating the emotional significance of feedback ambiguity. Finally, the aforementioned effects also manifested in the stage of information integration.ConclusionThese findings indicate both similarities and discrepancies between the processing of valence ambiguity and that of magnitude ambiguity, which may help understand the mechanisms of ambiguous information processing.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Valence and magnitude ambiguity in feedback processing

Xue

Broster

et al. 2017

Brain and Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It follows that to understand how the brain makes decisions, we need to begin by studying how it computes stimulus values at the time of choice. A sizable body of fMRI and neurophysiology evidence has shown that activity in ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC) correlates with stimulus values at the time of choice (Kable and Glimcher, 2007;Knutson et al, 2007;Tom et al, 2007;Hare et al, 2008Hare et al, , 2009Hare et al, , 2010Boorman et al, 2009;Chib et al, 2009;FitzGerald et al, 2009;Basten et al, 2010;Philiastides et al, 2010;Plassmann et al, 2010;Wunderlich et al, 2010;Litt et al, 2011). Neurophysiology studies have found similar signals in the central orbital cortices (Wallis and Miller, 2003;Padoa-Schioppa andAssad, 2006, 2008;Padoa-Schioppa, 2009).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stimulus Value Signals in Ventromedial PFC Reflect the Integration of Attribute Value Signals Computed in Fusiform Gyrus and Posterior Superior Temporal Gyrus

2013

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We often have to make choices among multiattribute stimuli (e.g., a food that differs on its taste and health). Behavioral data suggest that choices are made by computing the value of the different attributes and then integrating them into an overall stimulus value signal. However, it is not known whether this theory describes the way the brain computes the stimulus value signals, or how the underlying computations might be implemented. We investigated these questions using a human fMRI task in which individuals had to evaluate T-shirts that varied in their visual esthetic (e.g., color) and semantic (e.g., meaning of logo printed in T-shirt) components. We found that activity in the fusiform gyrus, an area associated with the processing of visual features, correlated with the value of the visual esthetic attributes, but not with the value of the semantic attributes. In contrast, activity in posterior superior temporal gyrus, an area associated with the processing of semantic meaning, exhibited the opposite pattern. Furthermore, both areas exhibited functional connectivity with an area of ventromedial prefrontal cortex that reflects the computation of overall stimulus values at the time of decision. The results provide supporting evidence for the hypothesis that some attribute values are computed in cortical areas specialized in the processing of such features, and that those attribute-specific values are then passed to the vmPFC to be integrated into an overall stimulus value signal to guide the decision.

show abstract

“…A recent metaanalysis of 206 studies of SV in adults identified the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (VMPFC) and VS as a "valuation system" (8). These regions represent SV during choice for monetary stimuli (10)(11)(12)(13)(14), charitable donations (15), consumer goods (16), and food (17)(18)(19). Despite the wealth of knowledge on the neural correlates of SV in adults, no previous studies have examined the neurobiological development of SV, which precludes ruling out the possibility that previous findings in support of a hyperactive adolescent reward system were confounded by differences in participant valuation.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Neural representation of expected value in the adolescent brain

Barkley-Levenson

Galván

2014

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

108

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous work shows that the adolescent reward system is hyperactive, but this finding may be confounded by differences in how teens value money. To address this, we examined the neural ontogeny of objective value representation. Adolescent and adult participants performed a monetary gambling task in which they chose to accept or reject gambles of varying expected value. Increasing expected value had a stronger influence over gambling choices in adolescents relative to adults, an effect that was paralleled by greater activation in the ventral striatum in adolescents. This unique adolescent ventral striatum response remained even after matching groups on acceptance behavior. These behavioral and neural data suggest that the value of available options has a greater influence in adolescent versus adult choices, even when objective value and subjective choice are held constant. This research provides further evidence that hyperactivation of reward circuitry in adolescence may be a normative ontogenetic shift that is due to greater valuation in the adolescent brain.A dolescence is characterized by heightened sensitivity to rewards (1). This phenotype is subserved by exaggerated neural response in ventral striatum (VS) to the anticipation (2) and receipt of expected (3-5) and unexpected reward (6) in adolescents versus other age groups. The question remains, however, whether this effect is mediated by ontogenetic differences or simply a methodological consequence of using money as the rewarding stimulus. In other words, does the adolescent brain attribute greater value to available rewards, or is the effect driven by adolescents valuing money to a greater extent than adults because they typically have less access to and experience with it? The goal of this study was to disentangle these possibilities by examining subjective valuation (indexed by behavior) of objectively valued choices.Subjective value (SV) is defined as the value that an individual places on a stimulus (7). To make a choice, an organism determines the SV of each alternative and then selects the one with the greatest SV (8, 9). A recent metaanalysis of 206 studies of SV in adults identified the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (VMPFC) and VS as a "valuation system" (8). These regions represent SV during choice for monetary stimuli (10-14), charitable donations (15), consumer goods (16), and food (17)(18)(19). Despite the wealth of knowledge on the neural correlates of SV in adults, no previous studies have examined the neurobiological development of SV, which precludes ruling out the possibility that previous findings in support of a hyperactive adolescent reward system were confounded by differences in participant valuation.One approach to understanding the neural computation of SV is through measurement of expected value (EV), the sum of all of the possible outcomes of a particular choice multiplied by their probabilities (20). In adults, increasing EV yields parametric activation increases in bilateral VS, midbrain, medial prefrontal cortex (MPFC), an...

show abstract

Dissociating Valuation and Saliency Signals during Decision-Making

Cited by 239 publications

References 25 publications

Valence and magnitude ambiguity in feedback processing

Valence and magnitude ambiguity in feedback processing

Stimulus Value Signals in Ventromedial PFC Reflect the Integration of Attribute Value Signals Computed in Fusiform Gyrus and Posterior Superior Temporal Gyrus

Neural representation of expected value in the adolescent brain

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About