Incentives Boost Model-Based Control Across a Range of Severity on Several Psychiatric Constructs
Open accessAbstract
Background Human decision making exhibits a mixture of model-based and model-free control. Recent evidence indicates that arbitration between these two modes of control ("metacontrol") is based on their relative costs and benefits. While model-based control may increase accuracy, it requires greater computational resources, so people invoke model-based control only when potential rewards exceed those of model-free control. We used a sequential decision task, while concurrently manipulating performance incentives, to ask if symptoms and traits of psychopathology decrease or increase model-based control in response to incentives.Methods We recruited a nonpatient population of 839 online participants using Amazon Mechanical Turk who completed transdiagnostic self-report measures encompassing symptoms, traits, and factors. We fit a dual-controller reinforcement learning model and obtained a computational measure of model-based control separately for small incentives and large incentives.Results None of the constructs were related to a failure of large incentives to boost model-based control. In fact, for the sensation seeking trait and anxious-depression factor, higher scores were associated with a larger incentive effect, whereby greater levels of these constructs were associated with larger increases in model-based control. Many constructs showed decreases in model-based control as a function of severity, but a social withdrawal factor was positively correlated; alcohol use and social anxiety were unrelated to model-based control.Conclusions Our results demonstrate that model-based control can reliably be improved independent of construct severity for most measures. This suggests that incentives may be a useful intervention for boosting model-based control across a range of symptom and trait severity.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The literature suggests alterations in the distinct reinforcement learning systems that underlie model-free and model-based decision-making processes in OCD, MDD, and schizophrenia.
“The literature suggests alterations in the distinct reinforcement learning systems that underlie model-free and model-based decision-making processes in OCD, MDD, and schizophrenia. 59,63,69–74”
From Investigating disorder-specific and transdiagnostic alterations in model-based and model-free decision-making (2024) · cites this paper as [73]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 49 · Cited by 94
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- [32]Gratz KL, Roemer L. Multidimensional assessment of emotion regulation and dysregulation. J Psychopathol Behav Assess. 2004;26:41–54. [[Google Scholar](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?journal=J%20Psychopathol%20Behav%20Assess&title=Multidimensional%20assessment%20of%20emotion%20regulation%20and%20dysregulation&author=KL%20Gratz&author=L%20Roemer&volume=26&publication_year=2004&pages=41-54&)]
- [35]Lynam DR, Smith GT, Cyders MA, Fischer S, Whiteside SP. The UPPS-P questionnaire measure of five dispositions to rash action (unpublished technical report) Purdue University; West Lafayette, IN: 2007. [[Google Scholar](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=The%20UPPS-P%20questionnaire%20measure%20of%20five%20dispositions%20to%20rash%20action%20(unpublished%20technical%20report)&author=DR%20Lynam&author=GT%20Smith&author=MA%20Cyders&author=S%20Fischer&author=SP%20Whiteside&publication_year=2007&)]
- [41]Gelman A, Carlin JB, Stern HS, Dunson DB, Vehtari A, Rubin DB. Bayesian Data Analysis, Third Edition. Chapman Hall/CRC Texts Statistical Science. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2013. [[Google Scholar](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Bayesian%20Data%20Analysis,%20Third%20Edition.%20Chapman%20Hall/CRC%20Texts%20Statistical%20Science&author=A%20Gelman&author=JB%20Carlin&author=HS%20Stern&author=DB%20Dunson&author=A%20Vehtari&publication_year=2013&)]
- Authors
- Patzelt, E. H., Kool, W., Millner, A. J., & Gershman, S. J.
- Affiliations
- Harvard University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Patzelt, Edward H.
- Venue
- Biological Psychiatry
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-03
- Volume
- 85
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 425-433
- ISSN
- 0006-3223 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC6314918
- OpenAlex
- W2810640937
- Cited by
- 94
- References
- 49
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 10
- FWCI
- 5.21
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Biological Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute on Drug Abuse (T90DA022759, R90DA023427)
- NIH Blueprint for Neuroscience Research
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
- Keywords
- model-based control, model-free control, meta-control, incentive effects, sensation seeking, anxious depression, social withdrawal, transdiagnostic traits, psychiatric symptom severity, sequential decision making, computational psychiatry
- MeSH terms
- Self-Control, Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Mental Disorders, Decision Making, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Models, Psychological, Motivation, Reinforcement, Psychology, Young Adult, Self Report
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review