Evaluation of cognitive effort in rats is not critically dependent on ventrolateral orbitofrontal cortex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Organisms must frequently evaluate the amount of effort to invest in pursuing future rewards. Despite explicit awareness of the potential benefits of cognitive work, individuals vary in their willingness to attempt cognitively demanding tasks, regardless of intellectual ability. Such differences may suggest that the degree to which cognitive effort degrades perceived outcome value is a subjective, rather than objective, process, similar to risk and delay discounting. Although numerous studies suggest the orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) is important for allowing subjective value estimates to be updated and/or used in cost/benefit decision-making, the causal role of the OFC in valuations of mental effort has received scant investigation. We therefore trained 24 female Long-Evans rats on the rodent cognitive effort task (rCET) and assessed performance following temporary bilateral inactivation of the ventrolateral OFC (vlOFC). In the rCET, rats decide at trial outset whether to perform an easy or hard attentional challenge, namely to localize a brief visual stimulus to one of five possible locations. The difficulty of the challenge is determined by the stimulus duration (1.0 vs. 0.2s for easy vs. hard trials respectively), and success on hard trials results in double the sugar pellet rewards. Somewhat surprisingly, inactivations of the vlOFC did not affect rats' willingness or ability to exert cognitive effort for larger rewards, despite increasing omissions and motor impulsivity on-task. When considered with previous work, it appears the vlOFC plays a minimal role in cognitive effort allocation specifically, and in valuations of effort more generally.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".