MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2922105053 · doi:10.1101/578468

Reward boosts neural coding of task rules to optimise cognitive flexibility

2019· preprint· en· W2922105053 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Sam Hall-McMaster, Paul S. Muhle-Karbe, Nicholas E. Myers, Mark G. Stokes

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2019
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDirectorate for Biological SciencesBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilFonds Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchNew Zealand GovernmentWellcome TrustVlaamse regeringMcMaster UniversityJames S. McDonnell Foundation
KeywordsCognitive flexibilityCoding (social sciences)Flexibility (engineering)CognitionTask (project management)Cognitive psychologyPsychologyTask switchingComputer scienceNeuroscienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Cognitive flexibility is critical for intelligent behaviour. However, its execution is effortful and often suboptimal. Recent work indicates that flexible behaviour can be improved by the prospect of reward, which suggests that rewards optimise flexible control processes. Here we investigated how different reward prospects influence neural encoding of task rule information to optimise cognitive flexibility. We applied representational similarity analysis (RSA) to human electroencephalograms, recorded while female and male participants performed a rule-guided decision-making task. During the task, the prospect of reward varied from trial to trial. Participants made faster, more accurate judgements on high reward trials. Critically, high reward boosted neural coding of the active task rule and the extent of this increase was associated with improvements in task performance. Additionally, the effect of high reward on task rule coding was most pronounced on switch trials, where rules were updated relative to the previous trial. These results suggest that reward prospect can promote cognitive performance by strengthening neural coding of task rule information, helping to improve cognitive flexibility during complex behaviour. Significance Statement The importance of motivation is evident in the ubiquity with which reward prospect guides adaptive behaviour and the striking number of neurological conditions associated with motivational impairments. In this study, we investigated how dynamic changes in motivation, as manipulated through reward, shape neural coding for task rules during a flexible decision-making task. The results of this work suggest that motivation to obtain reward modulates encoding of task rules needed for flexible behaviour. The extent to which reward increased task rule coding also tracked improvements in behavioural performance under high reward conditions. These findings help inform how motivation shapes neural processing in the healthy human brain.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.098
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.232 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies→French-language works237,207→