Cited by 962Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesBehavioral Health and InterventionsNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 218 of the 221 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 178 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Motivation and Cognitive Control: From Behavior to Neural Mechanism

Open access
Botvinick, Matthew, Braver, Todd·2015·Annual Review of Psychology

Abstract

Research on cognitive control and executive function has long recognized the relevance of motivational factors. Recently, however, the topic has come increasingly to center stage, with a surge of new studies examining the interface of motivation and cognitive control. In the present article we survey research situated at this interface, considering work from cognitive and social psychology and behavioral economics, but with a particular focus on neuroscience research. We organize existing findings into three core areas, considering them in the light of currently vying theoretical perspectives. Based on the accumulated evidence, we advocate for a view of control function that treats it as a domain of reward-based decision making. More broadly, we argue that neuroscientific evidence plays a critical role in understanding the mechanisms by which motivation and cognitive control interact. Opportunities for further cross-fertilization between behavioral and neuroscientific research are highlighted.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This review synthesizes behavioral and neuroscience research on how motivation shapes cognitive control, arguing that control is best understood as a form of reward-based decision making. It contends that neuroscience is essential for grounding the constructs of reward and effort and for explaining incentive effects, control dynamics, and effort costs.

Key findings

  • Incentives generally improve executive control across selective attention, memory, response inhibition, task switching, and working memory; for example, Padmala & Pessoa’s reward cue ($20 vs. $00) reduced Stroop-like interference and facilitation effects. However, boundary conditions exist: very small payments can undermine performance, very large incentives can produce “choking under pressure,” and extrinsic rewards may reduce intrinsic motivation.
  • Cognitive control carries an intrinsic cost: participants prefer lower-demand tasks and require substantially higher pay to choose high-demand tasks; neural signals in ventral striatum, ACC, and dorsolateral PFC track effort discounting and demand avoidance.
  • Depletion effects are increasingly interpreted motivationally rather than as glucose or resource depletion; incentives can restore performance and error-related neural signals, and neural data show changes in reward and control networks rather than global metabolic decline.
  • The review favors reward-based models over force-field and limited-resource accounts, proposing interactions between reward-related regions (ventromedial/orbitofrontal cortex, ventral striatum, amygdala, midbrain dopamine) and control-related regions (lateral PFC, ACC, parietal cortex, insula), with ACC and dopamine as key interfaces.

Methods

  • Narrative, selective review rather than a primary empirical study; it synthesizes cognitive psychology, social/personality psychology, behavioral economics, and neuroscience literatures.
  • Organizes evidence under three headings: the incentive–performance relationship, temporal dynamics of control, and the cost of control; compares force-field, limited-resource, and reward-based decision-making theories.
  • Draws on cited behavioral, fMRI, EEG, primate neurophysiology, and pharmacological studies; no new data, systematic search, or meta-analysis are reported.

Limitations

  • The authors state that neuroscientific work on motivation and control is still early-stage, many mechanistic details remain unresolved, and depletion-related neural findings are sparse and inconsistent; reward and effort constructs also face circularity and measurement problems.
  • Evident from the text: the review is selective and narrative, with no formal meta-analysis or systematic inclusion criteria; conclusions rely on cited studies rather than new experiments, and some figures/references appear incomplete in the provided text.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1146/annurev-psych-010814-015044

Cites

218 of 218 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

120 Not checked yet · 54 Own interpretation · 13 No basis given

Verify all 178 references — free account

Show all 124 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 36
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 33
63 of 63
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Decision making weighs both the anticipated rewards and anticipated costs of specific control operations.

    “An important assumption that enters into most reward-based models is that decision making weighs both the anticipated rewards and anticipated costs of specific control operations.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Parsimony is a legitimate criterion for comparing psychological theories.

    “claims based upon parsimony cannot withstand contrary empirical evidence.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Circularity in explaining choice via reward is a theoretical problem that must be resolved.

    “There is an obvious risk of circularity here: Choice is explained based on reward, but reward is inferred from choice.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Neural correlates of effort can serve as independent measures of effort that are dissociable from performance.

    “If neural correlates of effort can be identified, this provides a way out of the potential circularity of effort-based explanation.”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Depletion effects involve a wholesale reduction in the vigor of cognitive control, beyond a reduction in performance monitoring following sustained cognitive exertion.

    “Depletion effects, however, are postulated to involve more than a reduction in performance monitoring following sustained cognitive exertion: They are understood to involve a wholesale reduction in the vigor of cognitive control.”
5 of 5

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 221 references

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Atkinson JW, 1978, An Introduction to Motivation
  2. Awasthi V, 1990, Account. Rev., 65, 797
  3. Tops M, 2004, Gedrag Organ., 17, 32

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Botvinick, M., & Braver, T.
Affiliations
  • Princeton University (US)
  • Washington University in St. Louis (US)
Corresponding author
Botvinick, Matthew
Venue
Annual Review of Psychology
Published
2015-01-03
Volume
66
Issue
1
Pages
83-113
ISSN
  • 0066-4308 (ISSN-L)
  • 1545-2085
OpenAlex
W2166756161
Cited by
909
References
221
Citations by year
2026: 67 · 2025: 80 · 2024: 89 · 2023: 72 · 2022: 81 · 2021: 92 · 2020: 82 · 2019: 97 · 2018: 101 · 2017: 70 · 2016: 56 · 2015: 21
FWCI
4.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Annual Review of Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • John Templeton Foundation
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute on Aging (R13AG042291)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R37MH066078, R21MH097260, R01MH098815, R37 MH0660708)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
Keywords
motivation, cognitive control, executive function, reward-based decision-making, neural mechanisms, behavioral economics, social psychology, cognitive psychology, control functions
MeSH terms
Decision Making, Humans, Motivation, Reward, Cerebrum, Executive Function

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-06, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-06 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

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