Effort cost of harvest affects decisions and movement vigor of marmosets during foraging.

Our decisions are guided by how we perceive the value of an option, but this evaluation also affects how we move to acquire that option. Why should economic variables such as reward and effort alter the vigor of our movements? In theory, both the option that we choose and the vigor with which we move contribute to a measure of fitness in which the objective is to maximize rewards minus efforts, divided by time. To explore this idea, we engaged marmosets in a foraging task in which on each trial they decided whether to work by making saccades to visual targets, thus accumulating food, or to harvest by licking what they had earned. We varied the effort cost of harvest by moving the food tube with respect to the mouth. Theory predicted that the subjects should respond to the increased effort costs by choosing to work longer, stockpiling food before commencing harvest, but reduce their movement vigor to conserve energy. Indeed, in response to an increased effort cost of harvest, marmosets extended their work duration, but slowed their movements. These changes in decisions and movements coincided with changes in pupil size. As the effort cost of harvest declined, work duration decreased, the pupils dilated, and the vigor of licks and saccades increased. Thus, when acquisition of reward became effortful, the pupils constricted, the decisions exhibited delayed gratification, and the movements displayed reduced vigor.

Effort cost of harvest affects decisions and movement vigor of marmosets during foraging.

Our decisions are guided by how we perceive the value of an option, but this evaluation also affects how we move to acquire that option. Why should economic variables such as reward and effort alter the vigor of our movements? In theory, both the option that we choose and the vigor with which we move contribute to a measure of fitness in which the objective is to maximize rewards minus efforts, divided by time. To explore this idea, we engaged marmosets in a foraging task in which on each trial they decided whether to work by making saccades to visual targets, thus accumulating food, or to harvest by licking what they had earned. We varied the effort cost of harvest by moving the food tube with respect to the mouth. Theory predicted that the subjects should respond to the increased effort costs by choosing to work longer, stockpiling food before commencing harvest, but reduce their movement vigor to conserve energy. Indeed, in response to an increased effort cost of harvest, marmosets extended their work duration, but slowed their movements. These changes in decisions and movements coincided with changes in pupil size. As the effort cost of harvest declined, work duration decreased, the pupils dilated, and the vigor of licks and saccades increased. Thus, when acquisition of reward became effortful, the pupils constricted, the decisions exhibited delayed gratification, and the movements displayed reduced vigor. Significance statement: Our results suggest that as the brainstem neuromodulatory circuits that control pupil size respond to effort costs, they alter computations in the brain regions that control decisions, encouraging work and delaying gratification, and the brain regions that control movements, reducing vigor and suppressing energy expenditure. This coordinated response suggests that decisions and actions are part of a single control policy that aims to maximize a variable relevant to fitness: the capture rate.