The precision of value-based choices depends causally on fronto-parietal phase coupling

Abstract

Which meal would you like today, chicken or pasta? For such value-based choices, organisms must flexibly integrate various types of sensory information about internal states and the environment to transform them into actions. Recent accounts suggest that these choice-relevant processes are mediated by information transfer between functionally specialized but spatially distributed brain regions in parietal and prefrontal cortex; however, it remains unclear whether such fronto-parietal communication is causally involved in guiding value-based choices. We find that transcranially inducing oscillatory desynchronization between the frontopolar and -parietal cortex leads to more inaccurate choices between food rewards while leaving closely matched perceptual decisions unaffected. Computational modelling shows that this exogenous manipulation leads to imprecise value assignments to the choice alternatives. Thus, our study demonstrates that accurate value-based decisions critically involve coherent rhythmic information transfer between fronto-parietal brain areas and establishes an experimental approach to non-invasively manipulate the precision of value-based choices in humans.

Short-term administration of the GLP-1 analog liraglutide decreases circulating leptin and increases GIP levels and these changes are associated with alterations in CNS responses to food cues: A randomized, placebo-controlled, crossover study

“…The role of leptin in feeding is known to be complex. One recent study has shown that communication between frontal and parietal regions plays a role in value-based choices [58]. The relationship of leptin with pre-SMA, motor cortex, parietal cortex, and precuneus that we observed in this study could suggest a potential role for leptin in those complex neuronal circuits which evaluate food choices.…”

Diffusion Decision Model: Current Issues and History

“…Many studies have established relationships between diffusion models and neurophysiological measures such as single cell recordings in rodents and monkeys [52,88,105,145-150], electroencephalography (EEG) [42-43,151,153], functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) [42-43,141,152,154-157], transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) [158], transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) [159]. Diffusion model analyses have also been applied to bees and animal swarms [160-161] and even to slime moulds [162].…”

“…This and other diffusion models have been used to account for, among other things, value-based decision, social choice, and purchasing decisions [153-155,159,208-211]…”

Motivated Cognition: Effects of Reward, Emotion, and Other Motivational Factors Across a Variety of Cognitive Domains

“…This parallel may be somewhat exaggerated, however, as emotion and reward are sometimes experimentally operationalized similarly, and thus would produce similar effects in behavior. Specifically, both emotion and reward are often studied using shocks (Bauch et al, 2014;Bisby & Burgess, 2014;Dunsmoor et al, 2015;Jensen et al, 2007;Murty et al, 2012Murty et al, , 2011Pessoa, 2009;Phelps & LeDoux, 2005;Redondo et al, 2014;Schmidt et al, 2015;Wang et al, 2013;Weiner & Walker, 1966), food (Beaver et al, 2006;de Water et al, 2017;Isen & Geva, 1987;LaBar et al, 2001;Polanía et al, 2015;Talmi et al, 2013;Wadlinger & Isaacowitz, 2006), emotional face pictures (Bradley et al, 1997;Lin et al, 2012;Tsukiura & Cabeza, 2008;Vrijsen et al, 2013;Vuilleumier & Schwartz, 2001;Woud et al, 2013), or erotic/sexual pictures (Attard-Johnson & Bindemann, 2017;Bradley et al, 2001;Ferrey et al, 2012;Hamann et al, 2004;Iigaya et al, 2016;Most et al, 2007;Sescousse et al, 2013aSescousse et al, , 2010. As such, it would be expected that both emotion and reward demonstrate similar effects on cognition, as they can be studied using nearly identical experimental designs.…”