Cited by 665Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics

How Green Is the Grass on the Other Side? Frontopolar Cortex and the Evidence in Favor of Alternative Courses of Action

Open access
Boorman, Erie D., Behrens, Timothy E.J., Woolrich, Mark W., Rushworth, Matthew F.S.·2009·Neuron

Abstract

Behavioral flexibility is the hallmark of goal-directed behavior. Whereas a great deal is known about the neural substrates of behavioral adjustment when it is explicitly cued by features of the external environment, little is known about how we adapt our behavior when such changes are made on the basis of uncertain evidence. Using a Bayesian reinforcement-learning model and fMRI, we show that frontopolar cortex (FPC) tracks the relative advantage in favor of switching to a foregone alternative when choices are made voluntarily. Changes in FPC functional connectivity occur when subjects finally decide to switch to the alternative behavior. Moreover, interindividual variation in the FPC signal predicts interindividual differences in effectively adapting behavior. By contrast, ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC) encodes the relative value of the current decision. Collectively, these findings reveal complementary prefrontal computations essential for promoting short- and long-term behavioral flexibility.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuron.2009.05.014

Cites

72 of 72 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Difference in value (DV) is a reliable predictor of participants' choices, with the slope of the logistic regression being a measure of choice accuracy, or noise in the choice process.

    “In line with previous studies we show DV is a reliable predictor of participants’ choices2,19 with the slope of the logistic regression being a measure of choice accuracy, or noise in the choice process20.”

    From Confidence in value-based choice (2013) · cites this paper as [19]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Boorman, E. D., Behrens, T. E. J., Woolrich, M. W., & Rushworth, M. F. S.
Affiliations
University of Oxford (GB)
Corresponding author
Boorman, Erie D.
Venue
Neuron
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009-06
Volume
62
Issue
5
Pages
733-743
ISSN
0896-6273 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2034689767
Cited by
665
References
72
Citations by year
2026: 24 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 36 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 42 · 2020: 41 · 2019: 43 · 2018: 39 · 2017: 46 · 2016: 52 · 2015: 51 · 2014: 48 · 2013: 45 · 2012: 45
FWCI
18.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Neuron (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Wellcome Trust
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Keywords
frontopolar cortex, behavioral flexibility, goal-directed behavior, Bayesian reinforcement learning, ventromedial prefrontal cortex, decision-making, switching behavior, individual differences, functional connectivity, uncertainty
MeSH terms
Adult, Bayes Theorem, Brain Mapping, Decision Making, Female, Frontal Lobe, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Functional Laterality, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Models, Neurological, Neuropsychological Tests, Oxygen, Psychomotor Performance, Regression Analysis, Reward, Signal Detection, Psychological, Young Adult

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