The neural basis of cost-benefit trade-offs in effort investment: a quantitative activation likelihood estimation meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Influential theories of cognitive effort-based decision-making suggest that a cost-benefit trade-off guides mental effort allocation and that this trade-off may be reflected in shared neural activity in circuits tracking potential reward and task demand, supporting the idea that. While the dorsal medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) - and particularly the anterior cingulate cortex (dACC) - has been proposed as a candidate region implementing this computation, it remains unclear whether mPFC/dACC activity tracks rewards and task demand independently or integrates them to reflect effort intensity. Recent accounts posit that the dACC plays a key role in mediating cost-benefit trade-offs. However, empirical evidence remains inconsistent. We conducted a systematic meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies, using the activation-likelihood estimation method to quantify brain activity across 45 studies ( N = 1273 participants) investigating choices and task performance in reward-guided cognitive control. We observed significant recruitment of the mPFC/dACC, putamen, and anterior insula for processing larger rewards and higher task demands. The mPFC/dACC clusters sensitive to task demands and rewards were anatomically distinct: caudal mPFC/dACC activity tracked increasing task demands, while rostral mPFC/dACC activity tracked increasing reward. Interestingly, caudal mPFC/dACC activity tracked the integration of reward and task-demand, compatible with cost-benefit trade-off theories of dACC function. These findings provide evidence for distinct signals for mental demand and reward in the mPFC/dACC, which are integrated to support the decision to invest mental effort.
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 | 0.038 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.029 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".