Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 391

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 336 of the 336 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Mechanisms of motivation–cognition interaction: challenges and opportunities

Open access
Braver, Todd S., Krug, Marie K., Chiew, Kimberly S., Kool, Wouter, Westbrook, J. Andrew, Clement, Nathan J., Adcock, R. Alison, Barch, Deanna M., Botvinick, Matthew M., Carver, Charles S., Cools, Roshan, Custers, Ruud, Dickinson, Anthony, Dweck, Carol S., Fishbach, Ayelet, Gollwitzer, Peter M., Hess, Thomas M., Isaacowitz, Derek M., Mather, Mara, Murayama, Kou, Pessoa, Luiz, Samanez-Larkin, Gregory R., Somerville, Leah H., for the MOMCAI group·2014·Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience
DOI 10.3758/s13415-014-0300-0
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Recent years have seen a rejuvenation of interest in studies of motivation–cognition interactions arising from many different areas of psychology and neuroscience. The present issue of Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience provides a sampling of some of the latest research from a number of these different areas. In this introductory article, we provide an overview of the current state of the field, in terms of key research developments and candidate neural mechanisms receiving focused investigation as potential sources of motivation–cognition interaction. However, our primary goal is conceptual: to highlight the distinct perspectives taken by different research areas, in terms of how motivation is defined, the relevant dimensions and dissociations that are emphasized, and the theoretical questions being targeted. Together, these distinctions present both challenges and opportunities for efforts aiming toward a more unified and cross-disciplinary approach. We identify a set of pressing research questions calling for this sort of cross-disciplinary approach, with the explicit goal of encouraging integrative and collaborative investigations directed toward them.

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 · 10.3758/s13415-014-0300-0

Cites

336 of 336 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 336 references

Cited by

See all 391

Metadata

Authors
Braver, T. S., Krug, M. K., Chiew, K. S., Kool, W., Westbrook, J. A., Clement, N. J., Adcock, R. A., Barch, D. M., Botvinick, M. M., Carver, C. S., Cools, R., Custers, R., Dickinson, A., Dweck, C. S., Fishbach, A., Gollwitzer, P. M., Hess, T. M., Isaacowitz, D. M., Mather, M., Murayama, K., Pessoa, L., Samanez-Larkin, G. R., Somerville, L. H., & for the MOMCAI group
Venue
Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2014-06
Volume
14
Issue
2
Pages
443-472
ISSN
  • 1530-7026 (ISSN-L)
  • 1531-135X
DOI
10.3758/s13415-014-0300-0
OpenAlex
W2136179913
Cited by
391
References
336
FWCI
13.79
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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Mechanisms of motivation–cognition interaction: challenges and opportunities. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3758/s13415-014-0300-0
The paper
Braver, T. S., Krug, M. K., Chiew, K. S., Kool, W., Westbrook, J. A., Clement, N. J., Adcock, R. A., Barch, D. M., Botvinick, M. M., Carver, C. S., Cools, R., Custers, R., Dickinson, A., Dweck, C. S., Fishbach, A., Gollwitzer, P. M., Hess, T. M., Isaacowitz, D. M., Mather, M., . . . for the MOMCAI group. (2014). Mechanisms of motivation–cognition interaction: challenges and opportunities. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-014-0300-0

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.