An integrative effort: Bridging motivational intensity theory and recent neurocomputational and neuronal models of effort and control allocation.

IF 5.1 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY Psychological review Pub Date : 2023-07-01 DOI:10.1037/rev0000372
Nicolas Silvestrini, Sebastian Musslick, Anne S Berry, Eliana Vassena
{"title":"An integrative effort: Bridging motivational intensity theory and recent neurocomputational and neuronal models of effort and control allocation.","authors":"Nicolas Silvestrini,&nbsp;Sebastian Musslick,&nbsp;Anne S Berry,&nbsp;Eliana Vassena","doi":"10.1037/rev0000372","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>An increasing number of cognitive, neurobiological, and computational models have been proposed in the last decade, seeking to explain how humans allocate physical or cognitive effort. Most models share conceptual similarities with motivational intensity theory (MIT), an influential classic psychological theory of motivation. Yet, little effort has been made to integrate such models, which remain confined within the explanatory level for which they were developed, that is, psychological, computational, neurobiological, and neuronal. In this critical review, we derive novel analyses of three recent computational and neuronal models of effort allocation-the expected value of control theory, the reinforcement meta-learner (RML) model, and the neuronal model of attentional effort-and establish a formal relationship between these models and MIT. Our analyses reveal striking similarities between predictions made by these models, with a shared key tenet: a nonmonotonic relationship between perceived task difficulty and effort, following a sawtooth or inverted U shape. In addition, the models converge on the proposition that the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex may be responsible for determining the allocation of effort and cognitive control. We conclude by discussing the distinct contributions and strengths of each theory toward understanding neurocomputational processes of effort allocation. Finally, we highlight the necessity for a unified understanding of effort allocation, by drawing novel connections between different theorizing of adaptive effort allocation as described by the presented models. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":21016,"journal":{"name":"Psychological review","volume":"130 4","pages":"1081-1103"},"PeriodicalIF":5.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000372","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

An increasing number of cognitive, neurobiological, and computational models have been proposed in the last decade, seeking to explain how humans allocate physical or cognitive effort. Most models share conceptual similarities with motivational intensity theory (MIT), an influential classic psychological theory of motivation. Yet, little effort has been made to integrate such models, which remain confined within the explanatory level for which they were developed, that is, psychological, computational, neurobiological, and neuronal. In this critical review, we derive novel analyses of three recent computational and neuronal models of effort allocation-the expected value of control theory, the reinforcement meta-learner (RML) model, and the neuronal model of attentional effort-and establish a formal relationship between these models and MIT. Our analyses reveal striking similarities between predictions made by these models, with a shared key tenet: a nonmonotonic relationship between perceived task difficulty and effort, following a sawtooth or inverted U shape. In addition, the models converge on the proposition that the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex may be responsible for determining the allocation of effort and cognitive control. We conclude by discussing the distinct contributions and strengths of each theory toward understanding neurocomputational processes of effort allocation. Finally, we highlight the necessity for a unified understanding of effort allocation, by drawing novel connections between different theorizing of adaptive effort allocation as described by the presented models. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
一个综合的努力:连接动机强度理论和最近的神经计算和神经元模型的努力和控制分配。
在过去十年中,越来越多的认知、神经生物学和计算模型被提出,试图解释人类如何分配身体或认知努力。大多数模型在概念上与动机强度理论(MIT)有相似之处。然而,整合这些模型的努力很少,它们仍然局限于它们被开发的解释层面,即心理学、计算学、神经生物学和神经元。在这篇批判性的综述中,我们对最近的三种努力分配的计算和神经元模型——控制理论的期望值、强化元学习者(RML)模型和注意努力的神经元模型——进行了新颖的分析,并建立了这些模型与MIT之间的正式关系。我们的分析揭示了这些模型的预测之间惊人的相似之处,并有一个共同的关键原则:感知任务难度和努力之间存在非单调关系,遵循锯齿形或倒U形。此外,这些模型都集中在背前扣带皮层可能负责决定努力和认知控制的分配这一命题上。最后,我们讨论了每个理论对理解努力分配的神经计算过程的独特贡献和优势。最后,我们强调了统一理解努力分配的必要性,通过在所提出的模型中描述的适应性努力分配的不同理论之间建立新的联系。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c) 2023 APA,版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Psychological review
Psychological review 医学-心理学
CiteScore
9.70
自引率
5.60%
发文量
97
期刊介绍: Psychological Review publishes articles that make important theoretical contributions to any area of scientific psychology, including systematic evaluation of alternative theories.
期刊最新文献
How does depressive cognition develop? A state-dependent network model of predictive processing. Bouncing back from life's perturbations: Formalizing psychological resilience from a complex systems perspective. The meaning of attention control. Counterfactuals and the logic of causal selection. The relation between learning and stimulus-response binding.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1