Back

Caudate dopamine predicts cognitive effort decisions both in the lab and daily life

Crawford, J. L.; Brough, R. E.; Eisenstein, S. A.; Peelle, J. E.; Braver, T. S.

2026-09-29 neuroscience
10.64898/2026.09.26.754663 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Making choices about whether and when to engage cognitive effort is a common feature of human everyday experience with important consequences for academic, career, and health outcomes. Yet, despite its importance, little is understood about the neurochemical mechanisms that underlie individual differences in the willingness to engage in cognitively effortful activities. To examine this question, we employed a multi-modal neuroimaging approach in which participants performed the Cognitive Effort Discounting paradigm (Cog-ED) while simultaneous PET-fMRI was acquired. We assessed both individual differences in dopamine-D2 receptor availability and brain activity during decision-making. In addition, the same participants performed a parametric working memory task (N-Back) and reported the cognitive effort associated with their daily life activities through a seven-day Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) protocol. The findings suggest a central role for caudate dopamine-D2 receptors in modulating cognitive effort-related motivation. People with higher caudate dopamine-D2 receptor availability had better working memory function, heightened sensitivity to effort costs, and greater modulation of brain activity during effort valuation. These laboratory findings also translated directly to daily life: higher levels of caudate dopamine-D2 receptors were associated with greater engagement in cognitively effortful activities. Together, the results suggest that how individuals determine the motivational value of cognitively effortful activities strongly depends on the dopamine system.

Matching journals

The top 11 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.