Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 308

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 12 of the 12 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Weighing up the benefits of work: Behavioral and neural analyses of effort-related decision making

Open access
Walton, M.E., Kennerley, S.W., Bannerman, D.M., Phillips, P.E.M., Rushworth, M.F.S.·2006·Neural Networks
DOI 10.1016/j.neunet.2006.03.005
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

How we decide whether a course of action is worth undertaking is largely unknown. Recently, neuroscientists have been turning to ecological approaches to address this issue, examining how animals evaluate the costs and benefits of different options. We present here evidence from rodents and monkeys that demonstrate the degree to which they take into account work and energetic requirements when deciding what responses to make. These calculations appear to be critically mediated by the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) and mesolimbic dopamine (DA) pathways, with damage to either causing a bias towards options that are easily obtain but yield relatively smaller reward rather than alternatives that required more work but result in greater reward. The evaluation of such decisions appears to be carried out in systems independent of those involved in delay-discounting. We suggest that top-down signals from ACC to nucleus accumbens (NAc) and/or midbrain DA cells may be vital for overcoming effort-related response costs.

Overview

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neunet.2006.03.005

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 12 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Walton, M. E., Kennerley, S. W., Bannerman, D. M., Phillips, P. E. M., & Rushworth, M. F. S.
Venue
Neural Networks
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2006-10
Volume
19
Issue
8
Pages
1302-1314
ISSN
0893-6080 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.neunet.2006.03.005
OpenAlex
W2111853573
Cited by
308
References
12
FWCI
6.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.