Cited by 67Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorNeural dynamics and brain function

The Role of the Parietal Cortex in the Representation of Task-Reward Associations

Open access
Wisniewski, D., Reverberi, C., Momennejad, I., Kahnt, T., Haynes, J.-D.·2015·Journal of Neuroscience

Abstract

Rewards obtained from specific behaviors can and do change across time. To adapt to such conditions, humans need to represent and update associations between behaviors and their outcomes. Much previous work focused on how rewards affect the processing of specific tasks. However, abstract associations between multiple potential behaviors and multiple rewards are an important basis for adaptation as well. In this experiment, we directly investigated which brain areas represent associations between multiple tasks and rewards, using time-resolved multivariate pattern analysis of functional magnetic resonance imaging data. Importantly, we were able to dissociate neural signals reflecting task-reward associations from those related to task preparation and reward expectation processes, variables that were often correlated in previous research. We hypothesized that brain regions involved in processing tasks and/or rewards will be involved in processing associations between them. Candidate areas included the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex, which is involved in associating simple actions and rewards, and the parietal cortex, which has been shown to represent task rules and action values. Our results indicate that local spatial activation patterns in the inferior parietal cortex indeed represent task-reward associations. Interestingly, the parietal cortex flexibly changes its content of representation within trials. It first represents task-reward associations, later switching to process tasks and rewards directly. These findings highlight the importance of the inferior parietal cortex in associating behaviors with their outcomes and further show that it can flexibly reconfigure its function within single trials. Significance statement: Rewards obtained from specific behaviors rarely remain constant over time. To adapt to changing conditions, humans need to continuously update and represent the current association between behavior and its outcomes. However, little is known about the neural representation of behavior-outcome associations. Here, we used multivariate pattern analysis of functional magnetic resonance imaging data to investigate the neural correlates of such associations. Our results demonstrate that the parietal cortex plays a central role in representing associations between multiple behaviors and their outcomes. They further highlight the flexibility of the parietal cortex, because we find it to adapt its function to changing task demands within trials on relatively short timescales.

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 · 10.1523/jneurosci.4882-14.2015

Cites

58 of 58 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?

  • Neuroimaging studies demonstrated more accurate decoding of task-set representations in frontoparietal regions on reward relative to no reward trials.

    “Concurring evidence for this notion comes from recent neuroimaging studies that demonstrated more accurate decoding of task-set representations in frontoparietal regions on reward relative to no reward trials (Etzel, Cole, Zacks, Kay, & Braver, 2015; Wisniewski, Reverberi, Momennejad, Kahnt, & Haynes, 2015).”

    From Selection history: How reward modulates selectivity of visual attention. (2018) · cites this paper as Wisniewski et al., 2015

    Analysis II: representation of tasks (page unavailable) reports task decoding in the left inferior parietal and premotor cortices, and says those clusters also represented reward effects. But the paper does not report more accurate task decoding on reward than no-reward trials; its reward analysis contrasts high- and low-reward conditions, not reward with no reward. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Changes in processing may be mediated by an enhancement of endogenous task-set representations in frontoparietal regions, which promotes task performance either more broadly or selectively depending on task demands.

    “Recent evidence shows that these changes in processing may be mediated by an enhancement of endogenous task-set representations in frontoparietal regions (Etzel et al., 2015; Wisniewski et al., 2015), which promotes task performance either more broadly or selectively, depending on the specific task demands.”

    From Selection history: How reward modulates selectivity of visual attention. (2018) · cites this paper as Wisniewski et al., 2015

    Analysis II (page not provided) finds task representations in the left inferior parietal and premotor cortices, and the Behavioral section reports faster responses on high-reward trials. But the paper does not establish that enhanced endogenous task-set representations mediate that performance benefit, or that the benefit is broad versus selective depending on task demands. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wisniewski, D., Reverberi, C., Momennejad, I., Kahnt, T., & Haynes, J.-D.
Affiliations
  • Bernstein Center for Computational Neuroscience Berlin (DE)
  • University of Milano-Bicocca (IT)
  • Princeton University (US)
  • Northwestern University (US)
  • Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin (DE)
Venue
Journal of Neuroscience
Published
2015-09-09
Volume
35
Issue
36
Pages
12355-12365
ISSN
  • 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-2401
OpenAlex
W1484543822
Cited by
67
References
58
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 5
FWCI
4.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • BOA (University of Milano-Bicocca) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (EXC257, KFO-247, SFB940)
  • Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (SFB 940, 01GQ1001C)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
Keywords
parietal cortex, inferior parietal cortex, neural representations, reward anticipation, task preparation, dorsal anterior cingulate cortex
MeSH terms
Adult, Association Learning, Female, Humans, Male, Parietal Lobe, Reward

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