MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390078237 · doi:10.1017/s1355617723005982

48 Should I Stay or Should I Go? Neural Circuits Underlying Decisions to Explore or Exploit

2023· article· en· W4390078237 on OpenAlexaff
Lindsay E. Wyatt, Patrick Hewan, Nathan R Spreng, Gary R. Turner

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the International Neuropsychological Society · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExploitNeuropsychologyNeuroimagingNormativePsychologyIntervention (counseling)Neural correlates of consciousnessCore (optical fiber)ScarcityComputer scienceCognitive psychologyCognitionNeurosciencePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: Adaptive decision-making is necessary to sustain functional independence. Maladaptive decisions are among the most prevalent features of psychological and neurological disorders. One crucial aspect of decision-making involves arbitrating between exploring new avenues with risky but potentially lucrative outcomes or exploiting prior knowledge and endorsing predictable outcomes. Balancing this dichotomy creates a behavioral tension that shapes all decisions and is termed the exploration-exploitation trade-off. This trade-off has been linked to reward and affective drives and associated neural circuitry as well as neuropsychological dysfunction. However, the neural mechanisms underlying the exploration-exploitation trade-off are still uncertain, due to the scarcity of literature and the heterogeneity of paradigms. This study aimed to systematically quantify and disambiguate neuroanatomical correlates of the exploration-exploitation tradeoff in a normative adult sample. These findings provide a necessary starting point for future investigations of this fundamental aspect of decision-making across clinical populations, with potential implications for assessment and intervention. Participants and Methods: We used the effect-location method of meta-analysis to analyze data from 10 functional neuroimaging studies investigating the exploration-exploitation tradeoff in non-clinical samples. We analyzed the location and frequency of significant neural activations across studies for both explorative and exploitative decisions and characterized them as core and non-core regions. Core activations were defined as those reported in over 50% of studies. Secondary and tertiary activations were defined as those reported in 40% and 30% of studies, respectively. The present review was conducted in accordance with the guidelines of the 2009 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Results: The results revealed that explorative and exploitative choice behaviours differed markedly with respect to associated patterns of task-related brain activity. Exploration was associated with activity in brain regions implicated in externally directed, goal-based attentional processing and reward-related uncertainty, mainly tapping bilateral parietal and frontal circuitry, with relatively high consistency across studies. A core explorative network was revealed, consisting of activity in the frontal polar cortex, the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex, the bilateral medial frontal gyrus, the bilateral precuneus, and the bilateral intraparietal sulcus. Secondary and tertiary regions were also detected, including the bilateral anterior insula, the left precentral gyrus, the bilateral superior frontal gyrus, the right inferior frontal gyrus, the left supplementary motor area, the bilateral superior parietal lobule, and the bilateral thalamus. Exploitation was associated with brain regions implicated in internally directed processes including reward valuation, motivation, and memory. Core exploitative activations included the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, the bilateral anterior cingulate cortex, and the bilateral orbitofrontal cortex. Secondary and tertiary activations included the bilateral hippocampus, the left middle temporal gyrus, the bilateral angular gyrus, the left posterior cingulate cortex, the left superior frontal gyrus, and the bilateral superior temporal gyrus. Conclusions: The exploration-exploitation trade-off provides a novel paradigmatic approach to study adaptive and maladaptive decision-making behaviour in humans. Our findings support the neural dichotomization of exploration and exploitation and illuminate potential neural networks underlying this fundamental feature of decision-making. Understanding these mechanistic networks opens a new avenue of inquiry into decision-making deficits in clinical populations, including neurodegenerative, neurodevelopmental, and neuropsychiatric syndromes.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.528
GPT teacher head0.475
Teacher spread0.053 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the International Neuropsychological SocietySame topicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderFrench-language works237,207