Dorsal striatum mediates cognitive control, not cognitive effort per se , in decision-making: An event-related fMRI study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Whether the dorsal striatum (DS) mediates cognitive control or cognitive effort per se in decision-making is unclear given that these effects are highly correlated. As the cognitive control requirements of a neuropsychological task intensify, cognitive effort increases proportionately. We implemented a task that disentangled cognitive control and cognitive effort to specify the particular function DS mediates in decision-making. METHODS: Sixteen healthy young adults completed a number Stroop task with simultaneous blood-oxygenation-level-dependent response (BOLD) measurement using functional magnetic resonance imaging. Participants selected the physically larger number of a pair of single-digit integers. Discriminating smaller versus larger physical size differences between a number pair requires greater cognitive effort, but does not require greater cognitive control. We also investigated the effect of conflict between the physical and numerical dimensions of targets (e.g., 2 6). Selections in this incongruent case are more cognitively effortful and require greater cognitive control to suppress responding to the irrelevant dimension. Enhancing cognitive effort or cognitive control demands increases errors and response times. Despite similar behavioural profiles, our aim was to determine whether DS mediates cognitive control or simply indexes cognitive effort, using the same data set. RESULTS: As expected, behavioural interference effects occurred for both enhanced cognitive control and/or cognitive effort conditions. Despite similar degrees of behavioural interference, DS BOLD signal only correlated with interference arising due to increased cognitive control demands in the incongruent case. DS was not preferentially activated for discriminations of smaller relative to larger physical size differences between number pairs, even when using liberal statistical criteria. However, our incongruent and physical size effects conjointly activated regions related to effortful processing (e.g., anterior cingulate cortex). INTERPRETATION: We interpret these findings as support for the increasingly accepted notion that DS mediates cognitive control specifically and does not simply index cognitive effort per se.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".