EEG correlates of physical effort and reward processing during reinforcement learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Effort-based decision making is often described by choices according to subjective value, a function of reward discounted by effort. We asked whether a neural reinforcement learning signal, the feedback related negativity (FRN), is modulated not only by reward outcomes but also physical effort. We recorded EEG from human participants while they performed a task in which they were required to accurately produce target levels of muscle activation to receive rewards. Participants performed isometric knee extensions while quadriceps muscle activation was recorded using EMG. Real-time feedback indicated muscle activation relative to a target. On a given trial, the target muscle activation required either low or high effort. The effort was determined probabilistically according to a binary choice, such that the responses were associated with 20% and 80% probability of high effort. This contingency could only be known by experience, and it reversed periodically. After each trial binary reinforcement feedback was provided to indicate whether participants were sufficiently accurate in producing the target muscle activity. Participants adaptively avoided effort by switching responses more frequently after choices that resulted in hard effort. Feedback after participants’ choices which revealed the resulting effort requirement for the subsequent knee extension did not elicit an FRN component. However, the neural response to reinforcement feedback after the knee extension was increased during and after the time period of the FRN by preceding physical effort. Thus, retrospective effort modulates reward processing which may underlie paradoxical behavioral findings whereby rewards requiring more effort to obtain can become more powerful reinforcers. Significance Statement When making decisions, we typically select more rewarding and less effortful options. Neural reinforcement learning signals reinforce rewarding actions and deter punishing actions. When participants received feedback that their choices would require easy or hard physical effort, we did not observe reinforcement learning signals that are typically observed in response to feedback predicting reward and punishment. Thus, the reinforcement learning system does not strictly treat effort as loss or punishment. However, when the effort was completed and participants received feedback indicating whether they successfully achieved a reward or not, reinforcement learning signals were amplified by preceding effort. Thus, retrospective effort can affect neural responses to reinforcement outcomes, which may explain how effort can enhance the motivational effect of reinforcers.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".