Frontopolar theta oscillations link metacognition with prospective decision making.

Alexander Soutschek, Marius Moisa, Christian C Ruff, Philippe N Tobler
Author Information
  1. Alexander Soutschek: Department for Psychology, Ludwig Maximilian University, Munich, Germany. alexander.soutschek@psy.lmu.de. ORCID
  2. Marius Moisa: Zurich Center for Neuroeconomics, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. ORCID
  3. Christian C Ruff: Zurich Center for Neuroeconomics, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. ORCID
  4. Philippe N Tobler: Zurich Center for Neuroeconomics, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.

Abstract

Prospective decision making considers the future consequences of actions and therefore requires agents to represent their present subjective preferences reliably across time. Here, we test the link of frontopolar theta oscillations to both metacognitive ability and prospective choice behavior. We target these oscillations with transcranial alternating current stimulation while participants make decisions between smaller-sooner and larger-later monetary rewards and rate their choice confidence after each decision. Stimulation designed to enhance frontopolar theta oscillations increases metacognitive accuracy in reports of subjective uncertainty in intertemporal decisions. Moreover, the stimulation also enhances the willingness of participants to restrict their future access to short-term gratification by strengthening the awareness of potential preference reversals. Our results suggest a mechanistic link between frontopolar theta oscillations and metacognitive knowledge about the stability of subjective value representations, providing a potential explanation for why frontopolar cortex also shields prospective decision making against future temptation.

References

  1. Nat Neurosci. 2018 Feb;21(2):174-187 [PMID: 29311747]
  2. Curr Opin Behav Sci. 2020 Apr;32:155-166 [PMID: 35419465]
  3. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2014 Sep;9(9):1289-302 [PMID: 23887811]
  4. Am Econ Rev. 2015 May;105(5):267-72 [PMID: 27453582]
  5. Front Comput Neurosci. 2020 May 28;14:47 [PMID: 32547379]
  6. Neuron. 2017 Oct 11;96(2):348-354.e4 [PMID: 28965997]
  7. Nat Neurosci. 2010 May;13(5):538-9 [PMID: 20348919]
  8. Neurosci Lett. 2011 Jun 8;496(3):181-5 [PMID: 21527316]
  9. Schizophr Res. 2017 Nov;189:104-110 [PMID: 28148460]
  10. Evolution. 1989 Jan;43(1):223-225 [PMID: 28568501]
  11. Trends Cogn Sci. 2010 Nov;14(11):506-15 [PMID: 20932795]
  12. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2012 May 19;367(1594):1338-49 [PMID: 22492751]
  13. J Neurosci. 2013 Oct 30;33(44):17342-9 [PMID: 24174667]
  14. Psychon Bull Rev. 2003 Dec;10(4):843-76 [PMID: 15000533]
  15. Biol Psychiatry. 2012 May 15;71(10):873-80 [PMID: 22361076]
  16. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2017 Apr 1;12(4):635-642 [PMID: 28170049]
  17. Schizophr Bull. 2006 Apr;32(2):310-26 [PMID: 16397202]
  18. Neuron. 2013 Jul 24;79(2):391-401 [PMID: 23889938]
  19. Nat Neurosci. 2013 Jan;16(1):105-10 [PMID: 23222911]
  20. Behav Neurosci. 2016 Jun;130(3):271-80 [PMID: 26820586]
  21. Comput Psychiatr. 2017 Oct 01;1:24-57 [PMID: 29601060]
  22. Brain Cogn. 2019 Mar;130:20-27 [PMID: 30677724]
  23. Neuroimage. 2015 Apr 1;109:140-50 [PMID: 25613437]
  24. J Exp Anal Behav. 1972 Jan;17(1):15-22 [PMID: 16811561]
  25. J Neurosci. 2014 Mar 5;34(10):3536-44 [PMID: 24599454]
  26. J Neurosci. 2017 Jan 25;37(4):781-789 [PMID: 28123015]
  27. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016 May 24;113(21):6059-64 [PMID: 27162349]
  28. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2020 Sep;46(9):1611-1623 [PMID: 32134317]
  29. Brain Neurosci Adv. 2018 Nov 13;2:2398212818810591 [PMID: 30542659]
  30. Neuroimage. 2013 Aug 1;76:412-27 [PMID: 23507394]
  31. J Neurosci. 2018 May 30;38(22):5078-5087 [PMID: 29720553]
  32. Neuroimage. 2016 Oct 15;140:83-8 [PMID: 26453929]
  33. Conscious Cogn. 2012 Mar;21(1):422-30 [PMID: 22071269]
  34. Science. 2003 Nov 14;302(5648):1181-5 [PMID: 14615530]
  35. J Neurosci. 2019 Jun 26;39(26):5183-5194 [PMID: 31015338]
  36. Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2011 Nov;15(4):352-66 [PMID: 21685152]
  37. Nat Neurosci. 2015 Aug;18(8):1159-67 [PMID: 26192748]
  38. Neuroimage. 2015 Oct 15;120:362-70 [PMID: 26187453]
  39. J Neurosci. 2018 Apr 4;38(14):3534-3546 [PMID: 29519851]
  40. Front Neurosci. 2012 Feb 14;6:22 [PMID: 22347844]
  41. Neuroimage. 2018 May 15;172:838-852 [PMID: 29107773]
  42. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. 2016 Apr;26(4):653-62 [PMID: 26948669]

MeSH Term

Adult
Choice Behavior
Decision Making
Female
Frontal Lobe
Humans
Male
Metacognition
Reward
Young Adult

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0oscillationsdecisionfrontopolarthetamakingfuturesubjectivelinkmetacognitiveprospectivechoicestimulationparticipantsdecisionsalsopotentialProspectiveconsidersconsequencesactionsthereforerequiresagentsrepresentpresentpreferencesreliablyacrosstimetestabilitybehaviortargettranscranialalternatingcurrentmakesmaller-soonerlarger-latermonetaryrewardsrateconfidenceStimulationdesignedenhanceincreasesaccuracyreportsuncertaintyintertemporalMoreoverenhanceswillingnessrestrictaccessshort-termgratificationstrengtheningawarenesspreferencereversalsresultssuggestmechanisticknowledgestabilityvaluerepresentationsprovidingexplanationcortexshieldstemptationFrontopolarmetacognition

Similar Articles

Cited By