Correction: Causal role of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in modulating the balance between Pavlovian and instrumental systems in the punishment domain.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0286632.].

Causal role of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in modulating the balance between Pavlovian and instrumental systems in the punishment domain.

Previous literature suggests that a balance between Pavlovian and instrumental decision-making systems is critical for optimal decision-making. Pavlovian bias (i.e., approach toward reward-predictive stimuli and avoid punishment-predictive stimuli) often contrasts with the instrumental response. Although recent neuroimaging studies have identified brain regions that may be related to Pavlovian bias, including the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC), it is unclear whether a causal relationship exists. Therefore, we investigated whether upregulation of the dlPFC using transcranial current direct stimulation (tDCS) would reduce Pavlovian bias. In this double-blind study, participants were assigned to the anodal or the sham group; they received stimulation over the right dlPFC for 3 successive days. On the last day, participants performed a reinforcement learning task known as the orthogonalized go/no-go task; this was used to assess each participant's degree of Pavlovian bias in reward and punishment domains. We used computational modeling and hierarchical Bayesian analysis to estimate model parameters reflecting latent cognitive processes, including Pavlovian bias, go bias, and choice randomness. Several computational models were compared; the model with separate Pavlovian bias parameters for reward and punishment domains demonstrated the best model fit. When using a behavioral index of Pavlovian bias, the anodal group showed significantly lower Pavlovian bias in the punishment domain, but not in the reward domain, compared with the sham group. In addition, computational modeling showed that Pavlovian bias parameter in the punishment domain was lower in the anodal group than in the sham group, which is consistent with the behavioral findings. The anodal group also showed a lower go bias and choice randomness, compared with the sham group. These findings suggest that anodal tDCS may lead to behavioral suppression or change in Pavlovian bias in the punishment domain, which will help to improve comprehension of the causal neural mechanism.

The prefrontal cortex and (uniquely) human cooperation: a comparative perspective.

Humans have an exceptional ability to cooperate relative to many other species. We review the neural mechanisms supporting human cooperation, focusing on the prefrontal cortex. One key feature of human social life is the prevalence of cooperative norms that guide social behavior and prescribe punishment for noncompliance. Taking a comparative approach, we consider shared and unique aspects of cooperative behaviors in humans relative to nonhuman primates, as well as divergences in brain structure that might support uniquely human aspects of cooperation. We highlight a medial prefrontal network common to nonhuman primates and humans supporting a foundational process in cooperative decision-making: valuing outcomes for oneself and others. This medial prefrontal network interacts with lateral prefrontal areas that are thought to represent cooperative norms and modulate value representations to guide behavior appropriate to the local social context. Finally, we propose that more recently evolved anterior regions of prefrontal cortex play a role in arbitrating between cooperative norms across social contexts, and suggest how future research might fruitfully examine the neural basis of norm arbitration.

Moral dilemmas and trust in leaders during a global health crisis.

Trust in leaders is central to citizen compliance with public policies. One potential determinant of trust is how leaders resolve conflicts between utilitarian and non-utilitarian ethical principles in moral dilemmas. Past research suggests that utilitarian responses to dilemmas can both erode and enhance trust in leaders: sacrificing some people to save many others ('instrumental harm') reduces trust, while maximizing the welfare of everyone equally ('impartial beneficence') may increase trust. In a multi-site experiment spanning 22 countries on six continents, participants (N = 23,929) completed self-report (N = 17,591) and behavioural (N = 12,638) measures of trust in leaders who endorsed utilitarian or non-utilitarian principles in dilemmas concerning the COVID-19 pandemic. Across both the self-report and behavioural measures, endorsement of instrumental harm decreased trust, while endorsement of impartial beneficence increased trust. These results show how support for different ethical principles can impact trust in leaders, and inform effective public communication during times of global crisis. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION STATEMENT: The Stage 1 protocol for this Registered Report was accepted in principle on 13 November 2020. The protocol, as accepted by the journal, can be found at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.13247315.v1 .