Biology subjects

van Swieten, M. M. H.

Publications and source records attributed to van Swieten, M. M. H..

4 recordsLinked to original sources

bioRxiv2021

Muscarinic receptors mediate motivation via preparatory neural activity in humans

Motivation depends on dopamine, but might be modulated by acetylcholine which influences dopamine release in the striatum, and amplifies motivation in animal studies. A corresponding effect in humans would be important clinically, since anticholinergic drugs are frequently used in Parkinsons disease, a condition that can also disrupt motivation. Reward and dopamine make us more ready to respond, as indexed by reaction times (RT), and move faster, sometimes termed vigour. These effects may be controlled by preparatory processes that can be tracked using electroencephalography (EEG). We measured vigour in a placebo-controlled, double-blinded study of trihexyphenidyl (THP), a muscarinic antagonist, with an incentivised eye movement task and EEG. Participants responded faster and with greater vigour when incentives were high, but THP blunted these motivation effects, suggesting that muscarinic receptors facilitate invigoration by reward. Preparatory EEG build-up (contingent negative variation; CNV) was strengthened by high incentives and by muscarinic blockade, although THP reduced the incentive-effect. The amplitude of preparatory activity predicted both vigour and RT, although over distinct scalp regions; frontal activity predicted vigour, whereas a larger, earlier, central component predicted RT. The incentivisation of RT was partly mediated by the CNV, though vigour was not. Moreover, the CNV mediated the drugs effect on dampening incentives, suggesting that muscarinic receptors underlie the motivational influence on this preparatory activity. Taken together, these findings show that a muscarinic blocker impairs motivated action in healthy people, and that medial frontal preparatory neural activity mediates this for RT.

neuroscience↗

bioRxiv2021

Hunger improves reinforcement-driven but not planned action

Human decisions can be reflexive or planned, being governed respectively by model-free and model-based learning systems. These two systems might differ in their responsiveness to our needs. Hunger drives us to specifically seek food rewards, but here we ask whether it might have more general effects on these two decision systems. On one hand, the model-based system is often considered flexible and context-sensitive, and might therefore be modulated by metabolic needs. On the other hand, the model-free systems primitive reinforcement mechanisms may have closer ties to biological drives. Here, we tested participants on a well-established two-stage sequential decision-making task that dissociates the contribution of model-based and model-free control. Hunger enhanced overall performance by increasing model-free control, without affecting model-based control. These results demonstrate a generalised effect of hunger on decision-making that enhances reliance on primitive reinforcement learning, which in some situations translates into adaptive benefits. Significance statementThe prevalence of obesity and eating disorder is steadily increasing. To counteract problems related to eating, people need to make rational decisions. However, appetite may switch us to a different decision mode, making it harder to achieve long-term goals. Here we show that planned and reinforcement-driven actions are differentially sensitive to hunger. Hunger specifically affected reinforcement-driven actions, and did not affect the planning of actions. Our data shows that people behave differently when they are hungry. We also provide a computational model of how the behavioural changes might arise.

neuroscience↗

bioRxiv2021

Gambling on an empty stomach: Hunger modulates preferences for learned but not described risks

We assess risks differently when they are explicitly described, compared to when we learn directly from experience, suggesting dissociable decision-making systems. Our needs, such as hunger, could globally affect our risk preferences, but do they affect described and learned risks equally? On one hand, explicit decision-making is often considered flexible and contextsensitive, and might therefore be modulated by metabolic needs. On the other hand, implicit preferences learned through reinforcement might be more strongly coupled to biological drives. To answer this, we asked participants to choose between two options with different risks, where the probabilities of monetary outcomes were either described or learned. In agreement with previous studies, rewarding contexts induced risk-aversion when risks were explicitly described, but risk-seeking when they were learned through experience. Crucially, hunger attenuated these contextual biases, but only for learned risks. The results suggest that our metabolic state determines risk-taking biases when we lack explicit descriptions.

neuroscience↗

bioRxiv2019

Modeling the effects of motivation on choice and learning in the basal ganglia

Decision making relies on adequately evaluating the consequences of actions on the basis of past experience and the current physiological state. A key role in this process is played by the basal ganglia, where neural activity and plasticity are modulated by dopaminergic input from the midbrain. Internal physiological factors, such as hunger, scale signals encoded by dopaminergic neurons and thus they alter the motivation for taking actions and learning. However, to our knowledge, no formal mathematical formulation exists for how a physiological state affects learning and action selection in the basal ganglia. We developed a framework for modelling the effect of motivation on choice and learning. The framework defines the motivation to obtain a particular resource as the difference between the desired and the current level of this resource, and proposes how the utility of reinforcements depends on the motivation. To account for dopaminergic activity previously recorded at different physiological states, the paper argues that the prediction error encoded in the dopaminergic activity needs to be redefined as the difference between utility and expected utility, which depends on both the objective reinforcement and the motivation. We also demonstrate a possible mechanism by which the evaluation and learning of utility of actions can be implemented in the basal ganglia network. The presented theory brings together models of learning in the basal ganglia with the incentive salience theory in a single simple framework, and it provides a mechanistic insight into how decision processes and learning in the basal ganglia are modulated by the motivation. Moreover, this theory is also consistent with data on neural underpinnings of overeating and obesity, and makes further experimental predictions.\n\nAuthor summaryBehaviour is made of decisions that are based on the evaluation of costs and benefits of potential actions in a given situation. Actions are usually generated in response to reinforcement cues which are potent triggers of desires that can range from normal appetites to compulsive addictions. However, learned cues are not constant in their motivating power. Food cues are more potent when you are hungry than when you have just finished a meal. These changes in cue-triggered desire produced by a change in biological state present a challenge to many current computational models of motivation and learning. Here, we demonstrate concrete examples of how motivation can instantly modulate reinforcement values and actions; we propose an overarching framework of learning and action selection based on maintaining the physiological balance to better capture the dynamic interaction between learning and physiology that controls the incentive salience mechanism of motivation for reinforcements. These models provide a unified account of state-dependent learning of the incentive value of actions and selecting actions according to the learned positive and negative consequences of those actions and with respect to the physiological state. We propose a biological implementation of how these processes are controlled by an area in the brain called the basal ganglia, which is associated with error-driven learning.

neuroscience↗