Article Figures & Data
Figures
- Figure 1.
Task overview. A, During the instrumental training phase participants saw fruits on the outside of the box and had to learn whether a left or right response was required to collect the fruit inside the box (and points). In this example, the orange stimulus is paired with the pear outcome, and the grape stimulus paired with the coconut. B, Instructed outcome devaluation. At the beginning of each block, the six outcome fruits were shown and two were now devalued indicating that collecting them would lead to a deduction of points. C, SOAT trials. Participants were shown the fruit stimuli in quick succession and had to respond when the associated fruit outcome was still valuable (e.g., pear is still valuable so a response should be made in the presence of the orange) or withhold responding if the fruit outcome was no longer valuable (e.g., the coconut is devalued so no response should be made to the grapes). No feedback was given although participants were told they were still winning (and losing) points.
- Figure 2.
A, Mean accuracy and RT across the 12 blocks of training. Participants learned the correct response to make (left or right) in the presence of each stimulus to collect the outcomes. B, Response rates and mean RT on the SOAT trials. In general, participants responded for valuable trials while withholding responses for devalued trials. The difference between valuable and devalued was calculated as the DSI. Responding for valuable outcomes was faster than responding for devalued outcomes during slips of action trials. Error bars represent standard error of the mean calculated using the Cousineau (2005) method.
- Figure 3.
A, On devalued > respond-valuable trials, participants recruited regions associated with cognitive control and inhibition including ACC, paracingulate gyrus, and superior frontal gyrus in addition to bilateral OFC, insula, and IFG (at x = 4, y = 18, z = -12). B, Caudate nucleus activation was associated with goal-directed control shown here for the respond-valuable > slips-of-action contrast (y = -2, z = 24). C, Caudate nucleus and paracingulate gyrus were also activated on respond-valuable trials > filler trials (y = 10).
- Figure 4.
A, Increased activation in a region of dlPFC was associated with better performance on the SOAT test phase (y = 16 mm). B, Scatterplot illustrating direction of relationship between activation on respond-valuable trials and DSI (higher score represents better goal-directed control). For illustrative purposes only. COPE = contrast of parameter estimate.
- Figure 5.
A, Increased activation in a region of frontal pole across the training phase corresponded to stronger goal-directed control during the test phase (z = 2 mm). B, Increased activation in premotor cortex during training corresponded to stronger habit tendencies (more slips of action) during the test phase (x = -24 mm).
Tables
Analysis Cluster size Cluster regions (Harvard Oxford atlas) MAX X (mm) MAX Y (mm) MAX Z (mm) All-devalued > respond-valuable 3575 Superior frontal gyrus 4 18 60 Paracingulate Gyrus -4 50 20 ACC 8 36 22 2462 Supramarginal gyrus 60 -44 28 2392 Lateral OFC 44 24 -4 IFG 50 22 2 Insula 40 18 -10 1272 Lateral OFC -30 18 -12 IFG -40 22 2 Insula -30 18 -10 690 Supramarginal gyrus -58 -44 32 Slips-of-action trials > respond-valuable 1093 Insula 32 14 -14 lateral OFC 42 22 -12 368 Paracingulate gyrus -4 50 20 311 Insula -34 16 4 Frontal operculum cortex -40 20 0 283 Middle temporal gyrus 50 -34 -4 215 Superior frontal gyrus (premotor cortex) 2 18 58 204 Supramarginal gyrus 62 -44 30 Respond-valuable > slips-of action trials 148 Anterior caudate nucleus -20 -2 24 395 Occipital fusiform gyrus 24 -82 -2 Respond-valuable > filler trials 541 Superior parietal lobule -6 -76 40 279 Paracingulate gyrus -6 16 48 184 Anterior caudate nucleus 12 6 10 Exhaustive list of clusters after whole-brain correction for multiple comparisons at the cluster level (p < 0.05; cluster-forming threshold Z > 3.1).
- Table 2.
Exhaustive list of clusters where mean activation across subjects covaried with DSI score (with higher scores indicative of better performance during the test phase)
DSI as additional covariate Cluster size MAX X (mm) MAX Y (mm) MAX Z (mm) Cluster region Mean respond-valuable activation (positive) 152 -28 16 50 Middle frontal gyrus (dlPFC) Mean no-response-devalued activation (positive) 244 -28 14 48 Middle frontal gyrus (dlPFC) Mean training activation (positive) 278 28 62 2 Frontal pole 162 14 58 40 Frontal pole Mean training activation (negative) 364 10 -12 78 Premotor cortex 189 2 -76 -20 Cerebellum 145 24 -36 -24 Cerebellum Whole-brain analyses corrected for multiple comparisons at the cluster level (p < 0.05; cluster-forming threshold Z > 3.1).
In this issue
