Choosing to make an effort: the role of striatum in signaling physical effort of a chosen action.

The possibility that we will have to invest effort influences our future choice behavior. Indeed deciding whether an action is actually worth taking is a key element in the expression of human apathy or inertia. There is a well developed literature on brain activity related to the anticipation of effort, but how effort affects actual choice is less well understood. Furthermore, prior work is largely restricted to mental as opposed to physical effort or has confounded temporal with effortful costs. Here we investigated choice behavior and brain activity, using functional magnetic resonance imaging, in a study where healthy participants are required to make decisions between effortful gripping, where the factors of force (high and low) and reward (high and low) were varied, and a choice of merely holding a grip device for minimal monetary reward. Behaviorally, we show that force level influences the likelihood of choosing an effortful grip. We observed greater activity in the putamen when participants opt to grip an option with low effort compared with when they opt to grip an option with high effort. The results suggest that, over and above a nonspecific role in movement anticipation and salience, the putamen plays a crucial role in computations for choice that involves effort costs.

Certainty in ascending sensory signals - The unexplored driver of analgesic placebo response.

Previous frameworks have failed to adequately explain the observed correlation between within-subject variability in pain reporting and analgesic placebo response. These relationships have been observed in both clinical and experimental setups. Within-subject variability of clinical pain scores is traditionally assessed based on daily pain diaries collected during the pre-intervention stage. Experimental variability can be assessed by the Focused Analgesia Selection Test (FAST), which calculates the relationship between noxious stimuli administrated at various intensities and pain reports. The variability, either clinical or experimental, has been shown to predict the placebo response. In explaining the placebo response, Bayesian Brain Hypothesis (BBH) posits that pain perception (posterior), is composed of certainty (precision) of expectations (priors due to belief or conditioning) and incoming sensory information (likelihood), with the bulk of research focused on the precision of priors. Virtually all placebo analgesia research has focused on the priors and their certainty, rather than on the certainty of the likelihood, mainly because it cannot be assessed directly. We propose that the within-subject variability, as encapsulated by the FAST, is a proxy for certainty in (or, precision of) ascending sensory signals, and our results suggest that it could not only be assessed, but also manipulated. If true, our hypothesis will facilitate new lines of research and could potentially promote precision analgesic medicine by use of variability of pain scores as a diagnostic method to identify pain patients who will benefit from specific treatments.

Author Correction: Boundary effects of expectation in human pain perception.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper.

Sensitivity to pain expectations: A Bayesian model of individual differences.

The thoughts and feelings people have about pain (referred to as 'pain expectations') are known to alter the perception of pain. However little is known about the cognitive processes that underpin pain expectations, or what drives the differing effect that pain expectations have between individuals. This paper details the testing of a model of pain perception which formalises the response to pain in terms of a Bayesian prior-to-posterior updating process. Using data acquired from a short and deception-free predictive cue task, it was found that this Bayesian model predicted ratings of pain better than other, simpler models. At the group level, the results confirmed two core predictions of predictive coding; that expectation alters perception, and that increased uncertainty in the expectation reduces its impact on perception. The addition of parameters relating to trait differences in pain expectation improved the fit of the model, suggesting that such traits play a significant role in perception above and beyond the influence of expectations triggered by predictive cues. When the model parameters were allowed to vary by participant, the model's fit improved further. This final model produced a characterisation of each individual's sensitivity to pain expectations. This model is relevant for the understanding of the cognitive basis of pain expectations and could potentially act as a useful tool for guiding patient stratification and clinical experimentation.

Boundary effects of expectation in human pain perception.

Perception of sensory stimulation is influenced by numerous psychological variables. One example is placebo analgesia, where expecting low pain causes a painful stimulus to feel less painful. Yet, because pain evolved to signal threats to survival, it should be maladaptive for highly-erroneous expectations to yield unrealistic pain experiences. Therefore, we hypothesised that a cue followed by a highly discrepant stimulus intensity, which generates a large prediction error, will have a weaker influence on the perception of that stimulus. To test this hypothesis we collected two independent pain-cueing datasets. The second dataset and the analysis plan were preregistered ( https://osf.io/5r6z7/ ). Regression modelling revealed that reported pain intensities were best explained by a quartic polynomial model of the prediction error. The results indicated that the influence of cues on perceived pain decreased when stimulus intensity was very different from expectations, suggesting that prediction error size has an immediate functional role in pain perception.

Temporal dissociation of salience and prediction error responses to appetitive and aversive taste.

The feedback-related negativity (FRN), a frontocentral ERP occurring 200-350 ms after emotionally valued outcomes, has been posited as the neural correlate of reward prediction error, a key component of associative learning. Recent evidence challenged this interpretation and has led to the suggestion that this ERP expresses salience instead. Here, we distinguish between utility prediction error and salience by delivering or withholding hedonistically matched appetitive and aversive tastes, and measure ERPs to cues signaling each taste. We observed a typical FRN (computed as the loss-minus-gain difference wave) to appetitive taste, but a reverse FRN to aversive taste. When tested axiomatically, frontocentral ERPs showed a salience response across tastes, with a particularly early response to outcome delivery, supporting recent propositions of a fast, unsigned, and unspecific response to salient stimuli. ERPs also expressed aversive prediction error peaking at 285 ms, which conformed to the logic of an axiomatic model of prediction error. With stimuli that most resemble those used in animal models, we did not detect any frontocentral ERP signal for utility prediction error, in contrast with dominant views of the functional role of the FRN ERP. We link the animal and human literature and present a challenge for current perspectives on associative learning research using ERPs.

A comparison between the neural correlates of laser and electric pain stimulation and their modulation by expectation.

BACKGROUND: Pain is modulated by expectation. Event-related potential (ERP) studies of the influence of expectation on pain typically utilise laser heat stimulation to provide a controllable nociceptive-specific stimulus. Painful electric stimulation has a number of practical advantages, but is less nociceptive-specific. We compared the modulation of electric versus laser-evoked pain by expectation, and their corresponding pain-evoked and anticipatory ERPs. NEW METHOD: We developed understanding of recognised methods of laser and electric stimulation. We tested whether pain perception and neural activity induced by electric stimulation was modulated by expectation, whether this expectation elicited anticipatory neural correlates, and how these measures compared to those associated with laser stimulation by eliciting cue-evoked expectations of high and low pain in a within-participant design. RESULTS: Despite sensory and affective differences between laser and electric pain, intensity ratings and pain-evoked potentials were modulated equivalently by expectation, though ERPs only correlated with pain ratings in the laser pain condition. Anticipatory correlates differentiated pain intensity expectation to laser but not electric pain. COMPARISON WITH EXISTING METHOD: Previous studies show that laser-evoked potentials are modulated by expectation. We extend this by showing electric pain-evoked potentials are equally modulated by expectation, within the same participants. We also show a difference between the pain types in anticipation. CONCLUSIONS: Though laser-evoked potentials express a stronger relationship with pain perception, both laser and electric stimulation may be used to study the modulation of pain-evoked potentials by expectation. Anticipatory-evoked potentials are elicited by both pain types, but they may reflect different processes.