1. Neuroscience
Download icon

The hippocampus supports deliberation during value based decisions

  1. Akram Bakkour  Is a corresponding author
  2. Daniela J Palombo
  3. Ariel Zylberberg
  4. Yul HR Kang
  5. Allison Reid
  6. Mieke Verfaellie
  7. Michael N Shadlen
  8. Daphna Shohamy
  1. Columbia University, United States
  2. Boston University, United States
Research Article
  • Cited 0
  • Views 1,067
  • Annotations
Cite this article as: eLife 2019;8:e46080 doi: 10.7554/eLife.46080

Abstract

Choosing between two items involves deliberation and comparison of the features of each item and its value. Such decisions take more time when choosing between options of similar value, possibly because these decisions require more evidence, but the mechanisms involved are not clear. We propose that the hippocampus supports deliberation about value, given its well-known role in prospection and relational cognition. We assessed the role of the hippocampus in deliberation in two experiments. First, using fMRI in healthy participants, we found that BOLD activity in the hippocampus increased as a function of deliberation time. Second, we found that patients with hippocampal damage exhibited more stochastic choices and longer reaction times than controls, possibly due to their failure to construct value based on internal evidence during deliberation. Both sets of results were stronger in value-based decisions compared to perceptual decisions.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Akram Bakkour

    Department of Psychology, Columbia University, New York, United States
    For correspondence
    ab4096@columbia.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-6070-4945
  2. Daniela J Palombo

    Memory Disorders Research Center, Boston University, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Ariel Zylberberg

    Department of Neuroscience, Columbia University, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-2572-4748
  4. Yul HR Kang

    Department of Neuroscience, Columbia University, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Allison Reid

    Memory Disorders Research Center, Boston University, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Mieke Verfaellie

    Memory Disorders Research Center, Boston University, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Michael N Shadlen

    Department of Neuroscience, Columbia University, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-2002-2210
  8. Daphna Shohamy

    Department of Psychology, Columbia University, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Funding

McKnight Foundation (McKnight Memory and Cognitive Disorders Award)

  • Daphna Shohamy

National Science Foundation (NSF grant #1606916)

  • Akram Bakkour

National Institutes of Health (NIH grant # R01EY011378)

  • Michael N Shadlen

Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI Investigator)

  • Michael N Shadlen

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA Senior Research Career Scientist Award & VA Merit Grant CX001748)

  • Mieke Verfaellie

National Eye Institute (NEI grant T32-EY013933)

  • Yul HR Kang

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication. The contents of this manuscript do not represent the view of the US Department of Veterans Affairs or the US Government.

Ethics

Human subjects: Experimental procedures in Experiment 1 were approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at Columbia University through Columbia IRB Protocol #AAAO5907. All fMRI participants provided signed informed consent before taking part in the study. All patients and age-matched healthy participants in experiment 2 provided informed consent in accordance with the Institutional Review Boards at Boston University and the VA Boston Healthcare System outlined in VABHS IRB #2997.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Thorsten Kahnt, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, United States

Publication history

  1. Received: February 25, 2019
  2. Accepted: June 29, 2019
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: July 3, 2019 (version 1)

Copyright

This is an open-access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication.

Metrics

  • 1,067
    Page views
  • 199
    Downloads
  • 0
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, PubMed Central, Scopus.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Download citations (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Further reading

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    2. Neuroscience
    Nikolai Petkau et al.
    Research Article Updated
    1. Neuroscience
    Alan C Rupp et al.
    Research Article