Cited by 143Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesFree Will and AgencyNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior

How Self-Determined Choice Facilitates Performance: A Key Role of the Ventromedial Prefrontal Cortex

Open access
Murayama, K., Matsumoto, M., Izuma, K., Sugiura, A., Ryan, R. M., Deci, E. L., Matsumoto, K.·2015·Cerebral Cortex

Abstract

Recent studies have documented that self-determined choice does indeed enhance performance. However, the precise neural mechanisms underlying this effect are not well understood. We examined the neural correlates of the facilitative effects of self-determined choice using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Participants played a game-like task involving a stopwatch with either a stopwatch they selected (self-determined-choice condition) or one they were assigned without choice (forced-choice condition). Our results showed that self-determined choice enhanced performance on the stopwatch task, despite the fact that the choices were clearly irrelevant to task difficulty. Neuroimaging results showed that failure feedback, compared with success feedback, elicited a drop in the vmPFC activation in the forced-choice condition, but not in the self-determined-choice condition, indicating that negative reward value associated with the failure feedback vanished in the self-determined-choice condition. Moreover, the vmPFC resilience to failure in the self-determined-choice condition was significantly correlated with the increased performance. Striatal responses to failure and success feedback were not modulated by the choice condition, indicating the dissociation between the vmPFC and striatal activation pattern. These findings suggest that the vmPFC plays a unique and critical role in the facilitative effects of self-determined choice on performance.

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 · 10.1093/cercor/bht317

Cites

69 of 69 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

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?

  • There are now a more substantial set of findings in which choice, perceived control, and other forms of autonomy support produce superior performance and/or learning than control or yoked conditions without choice.

    “Further, as the autonomy studies suggest, there are now a more substantial set of findings in which choice, perceived control, and other forms of autonomy support produce superior performance and/or learning than do control or yoked conditions without choice (see also Murayama, Matsumoto, Izuma, Sugiura, Ryan, Deci et al., 2015;Patall, Cooper, & Robinson, 2008).”

    From Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning (2016) · cites this paper as Murayama, Matsumoto, Izuma, Sugiura, Ryan, Deci et al., 2015

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. De Martino B. 2011. The effect of context on choice and value. In Dolan R, Sharot T, editors. Neuroscience of preference and choice: Cognitive and neural mechanisms. Oxford (UK): Oxford: Academic Press. P 93-119.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Murayama, K., Matsumoto, M., Izuma, K., Sugiura, A., Ryan, R. M., Deci, E. L., & Matsumoto, K.
Affiliations
  • University of Reading (GB)
  • Tamagawa University (JP)
  • California Institute of Technology (US)
  • The University of Tokyo (JP)
  • University of Rochester (US)
Corresponding author
Murayama, K.
Venue
Cerebral Cortex
Published
2013-12-02
Volume
25
Issue
5
Pages
1241-1251
ISSN
  • 1047-3211 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2199
OpenAlex
W2171160671
Cited by
143
References
69
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 1
FWCI
2.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cerebral Cortex (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (submittedVersion)
  • CaltechAUTHORS (California Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Bank (Australian Catholic University) (submittedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Alexander von Humboldt-Stiftung
  • Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology
  • Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (24240061, 24120717)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Free Will and Agency
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
Keywords
forced choice, ventromedial prefrontal cortex, task performance, feedback processing, failure feedback, striatum, reward value, motivation, neural correlates of choice
MeSH terms
Formative Feedback, Adolescent, Adult, Choice Behavior, Decision Making, Female, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Psychomotor Performance, Reward, Prefrontal Cortex, 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