ライフサイエンスコーパス: punishment

1 hat explain cooperation based on coordinated punishment.

2 inhibition of reward pursuit under threat of punishment.

3 king when attempting to gain reward or avoid punishment.

4 evidence that many people prefer coordinated punishment.

5 ired precisely timed bursts after reward and punishment.

6 onsequences, that is in their sensitivity to punishment.

7 conforming to the majority's preference for punishment.

8 ng participants who shy away from initiating punishment.

9 ion of control over behavior under threat of punishment.

10 fter unexpected reward than after unexpected punishment.

11 s encode the relationship between action and punishment.

12 ood reward with the probability of footshock punishment.

13 panied by varying probabilities of footshock punishment.

14 lict with the urge to perform fast to escape punishment.

15 frontal cortex was elevated in AN following punishment.

16 ame with antisocial behavior and retaliatory punishment.

17 al behaviors and support for severe criminal punishment.

18 press reward seeking when faced with risk of punishment.

19 by rewards are often associated with risk of punishment.

20 sts and controls did not differ, did predict punishment.

21 rsuit of rewards and inaction in the face of punishment.

22 he tasks, primarily reflecting the impact of punishment.

23 were less willing to produce effort to avoid punishment.

24 in coding from lever presses to aborts with punishment.

25 ion is involved in learning of probabilistic punishment.

26 cooperation, avoiding the cost required for punishment.

27 n was associated with varying probability of punishment.

28 information salient and increase support for punishment.

29 ocess of learning to obtain reward and avoid punishment.

30 to inhibit action in the face of anticipated punishment.

31 range of beliefs about character, guilt and punishment.

32 ons in the model parameter of sensitivity to punishment.

33 re impulsive, and by amplifying the value of punishment.

34 nence from alcohol use because of contingent punishment.

35 options and the actual received rewards and punishments.

36 ttention due to associations with rewards or punishments.

37 ld depend on the availability of rewards and punishments.

38 ertainty predictions about either rewards or punishments.

39 to alter behavioral responses to rewards and punishments.

40 n increased learning rate specifically after punishments.

41 to stimuli that predicted either rewards or punishments.

42 describe how subjects learn from rewards and punishments?

43 g responses resulted unpredictably either in punishment (0.45 mA foot-shock) or the opportunity to ma

44 e woman in the vignette was receiving divine punishment (31%-54%) or believed she brought shame on he

45 Prosocial third-party punishment (3PP) is a punitive behavior against antisoci

46 improved learning from rewards but not from punishments, a pattern that is typically observed follow

47 igate one possible explanation, finding that punishment acts as a conduit for different moral signals

48 ociated with reward (mealworms) and one with punishment (air puff).

49 (2) Costly Punishment, alone, disfavors defection but decreases ave

50 s not entail learning - making "reward" and "punishment" ambiguous.

51 harm information and in selecting a suitable punishment amount.

52 to generate enhanced expectations of future punishment and 'pessimistic'/risk-averse decisions.

53 tions to examine preferences for conditional punishment and cleanly identify how the punishment decis

54 e tested here showed an equal preference for punishment and compensation; neuroimaging findings sugge

55 consistent with a Pavlovian linkage between punishment and inaction.

56 triosomal neurons in behaviors reinforced by punishment and moreover uncover functions of the direct

57 violations of the same norms in third-party punishment and recompensation games with respect to pros

58 t believing in free will predicts prescribed punishment and reward behavior, and that this relation i

59 reward, the PE group showed similar FRNs to punishment and reward, with a numerically larger FRN to

60 s Identification Test and the Sensitivity to Punishment and Sensitivity to Reward Questionnaire, resp

61 we propose that while blame is primarily for punishment and signaling one's moral character, praise i

62 ces of negative outcomes by reducing regret, punishment and stress.

63 Further, we show how punishment and this form of inclusiveness interact.

64 esistance of reward seeking to probabilistic punishment and to identify the mPFC as a region that fle

65 iduals under stress would learn faster about punishments and exhibit choices that were more affected

66 dgements of moral wrongness, mock-legislated punishments and perpetrator shame-suggesting that multip

67 highlight the opposed effects of rewards and punishments and provide further evidence for their roles

68 outcomes differed in valence (reward versus punishment) and feedback was either partial or complete

69 reedom), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual punishment), and the Fourteenth Amendment (equal protect

70 family, belief that she is receiving divine punishment, and belief that she brings shame on her fami

71 been implicated in learning from rewards and punishment, and in the expression of this learning.

72 ness violation, compensation is preferred to punishment, and once maximal compensation is available,

73 , reward-based decision making, avoidance of punishment, and responses to stress.

74 eapon technology, altruistic cooperation and punishment, and the mastery of complex collaboration pro

75 s thought to control a wide range of reward, punishment, and uncertainty-related behaviors.

76 BA) axons were activated by both rewards and punishments, and they acquired responses to cues predict

77 connectivity, D c , when there is no costly punishment applied, increases average payoff.

78 Subjects insensitive to punishment are afraid of aversive events, they are simpl

79 retributive and consequentialist motives for punishment are present in children approximately between

80 urther show that preferences for conditional punishment are unrelated to well-studied preferences for

81 ent, there is an incentive to slow down when punishments are forthcoming so as to decrease the rate o

82 ips between abstract stimuli and rewards (or punishments) are reversed.

83 ferent legal consequences, including greater punishments, are mandated for those who act in a state o

84 hoose to cooperate or defect under differing punishment arrangements.

85 The nature of the punishment associated with the CS- also affects learning

86 iability in the propensity to relapse in the punishment-associated context after prolonged abstinence

87 ific perpetrator and whether it has a viable punishment at its disposal.

88 ontribution threshold is low and that making punishment available within a generation is partially su

89 oint to the importance of reward rather than punishment avoidance in driving impulsive behaviors.

90 ating reward seeking and is also involved in punishment avoidance, but how it contributes to such opp

91 ink a neural response evoked by a reward and punishment-based learning task specifically with elevate

92 uring a striatal dopamine-related reward and punishment-based learning task, such as a reversal learn

93 ne is known to mediate both reward-based and punishment-based learning while octopamine function is i

94 urthermore, inhibiting these neurons impairs punishment-based learning without affecting reward learn

95 -carbohydrate/protein ratio increased social punishment behavior in response to norm violations compa

96 decisions of individuals are impacted by the punishment behaviour by others.

97 ually condition their punishment of peers on punishment behaviour by others.

98 rast to prior literature, neither reward nor punishment benefitted memory retention, arguing against

99 result of being selected against by capital punishment, but capital punishment is itself an aggressi

100 bution by the subordinate and inspection and punishment by the leader.

101 nal prediction information about rewards and punishments by displaying excitation to both (rather tha

102 echanisms, such as short-term harassment and punishment, by showing that aggression and matings are t

103 titution to a treatment condition where peer punishment can be inflicted exclusively on members of th

104 for the first time, evidence that reward and punishment can enhance motor adaptation in patients with

105 retical model; while instantaneous threat of punishment caused subjects to increase the vigor of thei

106 Recent evidence has shown that reward and punishment (collectively referred to as valenced feedbac

107 lammation acutely biased behavior, enhancing punishment compared with reward sensitivity, through dis

108 Patients' performance in the punishment condition was consistent with a reduced tende

109 ased propensity to relapse in Context B, the punishment context after prolonged abstinence.

110 in context-induced relapse in Context B, the punishment context after prolonged abstinence.

111 s a foundation for predicting the reward and punishment contingencies that will help groups function

112 ng in a goal-conflict task where rewards and punishments could be controlled or not.

113 vlovian and instrumental effects: reward and punishment cues promoted generalized (in)action in a Pav

114 MDD participants performed worse on punishment (d = -0.54) and reward learning tasks (d = 0.

115 Behaviorally, the punishment decision is primarily defined by a superaddit

116 integrate those two components into a single punishment decision.

117 ese findings deepen our understanding of how punishment decisions are made, which may someday help to

118 onal punishment and cleanly identify how the punishment decisions of individuals are impacted by the

119 Justice systems delegate punishment decisions to groups in the belief that the ag

120 performed a reaching task in which reward or punishment delivery depended on movement accuracy.

121 that during reward-seeking actions, risk of punishment diminishes VTA-driven neural synchrony betwee

122 emma games were designed to study how costly punishment, diversity, and density of connectivity inter

123 However, punishment does not engage the essential proficiencies a

124 When a single odor predicted both reward and punishment, dopamine neurons' responses to that odor ref

125 ing can be beneficial even in the absence of punishment, due to a different mechanism: preferential i

126 , vigilance) or specific to either reward or punishment (e.g., approach and avoidance).

127 tates that are either enhanced by reward and punishment (e.g., vigilance) or specific to either rewar

128 Punishment either exclusively satisfied retributive moti

129 rtainty-related disorders of mood.Rewards or punishments elicit diverse behavioral responses; however

130 eking, maintained in the face of the risk of punishment, emerged in only a subset of rats with a pred

131 goods game (IGG) to investigate whether peer punishment facilitates the successful provision of multi

132 (1) Introducing diversity to costly punishment favors both cooperation and defection, but no

133 showed in young individuals that reward and punishment feedback have dissociable effects on motor ad

134 esponse to unexpected reward than unexpected punishment feedback on a reversal-learning task.

135 audate) to unexpected reward than unexpected punishment feedback relative to the comparison group.

136 To determine the appropriate punishment for a harmful action, people must often make

137 nal spike activity in the two regions during punishment-free actions.

138 Remarkably, the reward and punishment groups adapted to similar degree as healthy c

139 All patients adapted, with reward and punishment groups displaying greater adaptation and read

140 In addition, punishment had a similar impact on action selection and

141 Furthermore, we show that punishment has a similar positive impact on performance.

142 While costly punishment (Helbing et al. in New J Phys 12:083005, 2010

143 strate for decision making involving risk of punishment; however, it is unclear how the BLA is recrui

144 We tested the altruistic punishment hypothesis in a sample of extraordinarily alt

145 ngly, suggesting that they anticipate severe punishment if they betray their partner's trust.

146 he present study investigated how reward and punishment impact behavioural performance when participa

147 seeking after extended abstinence following punishment imposed voluntary cessation of alcohol use.

148 s accumbens in context-induced relapse after punishment-imposed abstinence.

149 While punishment improved serial reaction time task performanc

150 issociable effects on motor adaptation, with punishment improving adaptation and reward enhancing ret

151 We tested the influence of punishment in an experiment involving economic incentive

152 feedback learning is selectively altered for punishment in AN.

153 study investigated the effect of reward and punishment in both a sequencing skill and a motor skill

154 s, anti-cancer mechanisms, reciprocation and punishment in humans and other vertebrates, policing in

155 NAC increased the sensitivity to punishment in LgA rats only, thereby promoting abstinenc

156 thus emerges as a more decisive factor than punishment in promoting human cooperation.

157 ted birds showed an increased expectation of punishment in the face of ambiguous information.

158 memory to associate an odor with coincident punishment in the mushroom body (MB).

159 However, clear connections between punishment in the UG and altruistic behaviours outside t

160 Here we investigate the impact of reward and punishment in this type of collective endeavors - coined

161 but not females persistently exchanged mild punishments in return for songs.

162 re forthcoming so as to decrease the rate of punishments, in conflict with the urge to perform fast t

163 onse times would slow as the overall rate of punishment increased.

164 cue-induced relapse tested after voluntary, punishment-induced abstinence.

165 ggression seeking after forced abstinence or punishment-induced suppression of aggression self-admini

166 n seeking, progressive ratio responding, and punishment-induced suppression of aggression self-admini

167 gressive ratio responding, and resilience to punishment-induced suppression of aggressive behavior.

168 g chained reinforcement schedules, or during punishment-induced suppression of cocaine-reinforced res

169 We show that punishment insensitivity is a unique phenotype, unrelate

170 We compare a baseline condition without a punishment institution to a treatment condition where pe

171 Lastly, responding in the face of punishment is assessed, thus examining how positive and

172 to act to obtain reward and inhibit to avoid punishment is easier compared with learning the opposite

173 ting that moral reputation hinges on whether punishment is enacted by victims or third-parties.

174 d against by capital punishment, but capital punishment is itself an aggressive behavior.

175 However, only MTL firing following punishment is linked to a lower probability for subseque

176 and once maximal compensation is available, punishment is no longer the favored response.

177 Coordinated punishment is particularly common among participants who

178 restoration is prioritized, and third-party punishment is rare; rather, third parties help with comp

179 Learning about rewards and punishments is critical for survival.

180 ived as morally righteous, including capital punishment, killing in war, and drone strikes that kill

181 n unique dimensions in a factor analysis and punishment learning and future expectations each account

182 actions by mPFC is involved in probabilistic punishment learning and provide a novel behavioral appro

183 Hence, punishment learning involves pathways and functions that

184 in response to negative outcomes (increased punishment learning rates).

185 tion module (enabling symmetrical reward and punishment learning).

186 s brain regions have been implicated in such punishment learning, but in disparate ways that are diff

187 drive correspondingly dissociable aspects of punishment learning.

188 stress transforms LHb reward responses into punishment-like neural signals; punishment-like response

189 sponses into punishment-like neural signals; punishment-like responses to reward omission also increa

190 king in adulthood, but the effects of AIE on punishment-mediated decision-making have not been explor

191 E increases behavioral inefficiency, but not punishment-mediated risk-taking, in adulthood.

192 AIE did not alter punishment-mediated risky decision-making.

193 d and a large reward with increasing risk of punishment (mild foot shock).

194 ice balance for monetary reward but also for punishment (monetary loss).

195 Reward and punishment motivate behavior, but it is unclear exactly

196 strate that engagement in sustained food- or punishment-motivated behavior is associated with suppres

197 r effects on behavior if groups promote peer punishment of free riders.

198 eases imprisonment through the detection and punishment of low-level offending or violation behavior.

199 pensation of victims-and to a lesser extent, punishment of offenders-was uniquely driven by traits re

200 , if so, how people actually condition their punishment of peers on punishment behaviour by others.

201 were specifically associated with increased punishment of proposers who made unfair offers, indicati

202 is on amends to the victim for fairness, not punishment of the offender.

203 and people's willingness to engage in either punishment of the perpetrator or compensation of the vic

204 valuation task that incorporates rewards and punishments of different nature, we identify distributed

205 g us to disentangle the impact of reward and punishment on instrumental learning from Pavlovian respo

206 ned with the hypothesized effects of capital punishment on self-domestication in the Pleistocene.

207 a dissociation of the effects of reward and punishment on the tasks, primarily reflecting the impact

208 ulates the impact of costs, such as delay or punishment, on action selection.

209 of continued drug self-administration (e.g., punishment or electric barrier) or by introducing an alt

210 presentation of cues that predicted reward, punishment or neutral outcomes and investigated individu

211 ng to the group they were allocated: reward, punishment or no feedback (neutral).

212 Persistence of reward seeking despite punishment or other negative consequences is a defining

213 decreases during reward and increases during punishment or reward omission.

214 han reward and represent the anticipation of punishment or the motivation for avoidance.

215 d the serial response time task with reward, punishment, or control feedback and were instructed to i

216 excessive focus on rewards, insensitivity to punishment, or to dysfunction in a particular stage of r

217 A treatment- rather than punishment-oriented approach is indicated to meet these

218 itivity to unexpected reward than unexpected punishment outcomes and appears consistent with increase

219 lable options such as the possible reward or punishment outcomes and the costs associated with potent

220 ng slot machines with fluctuating reward and punishment outcomes during safety and stress.

221 e and passive responses following reward and punishment outcomes.

222 ile responses to cues predicting unavoidable punishments persisted or increased.

223 cipants showed a reduced correlation between punishment PEs, but not reward PEs, and activity within

224 mPFC response to punishment precedes a similar MTL response and affects s

225 ions on neural representations of reward and punishment prediction errors within the ventral striatum

226 to approach reward-predictive cues and avoid punishment-predictive cues can conflict with instrumenta

227 Here we designed a task for punishment probability learning during reward-guided act

228 This synchrony declined as a function of punishment probability, suggesting that during reward-se

229 dapted seek action behavior as a function of punishment probability.

230 globus pallidus internus (GPi) in reward and punishment processing, and deep brain stimulation (DBS)

231 ustice; recent focus has been on third-party punishment, punitive sanctions by those not directly har

232 the processing of rewards is faster than for punishments, raising the possibility that expected value

233 ditional punisher augmenting an individual's punishment rates.

234 These neurons are predominantly excited by punishment rather than reward and represent the anticipa

235 STATEMENT Loss aversion-preferring to avoid punishment rather than to acquire equivalent reward-is a

236 dividuals show a tendency to prefer to avoid punishment rather than to acquire the equivalent reward

237 Punishment reduced EtOH lever pressing and elicited abor

238 will beliefs predicted support for criminal punishment regardless of countries' institutional integr

239 iny neurons receiving vmPFC input to examine punishment-related plasticity in this pathway.

240 ayed a diverse repertoire of reward-related, punishment-related, and uncertainty-related behaviors, w

241 ity to switch from controlled to compulsive, punishment-resistant alcohol seeking.

242 stablished; and (3) after the development of punishment-resistant alcohol seeking.

243 effect was strongest in the most compulsive, punishment-resistant rats, and reinstatement was associa

244 ssive ratio schedule self-administration and punishment-resistant responding, food reward tolerance a

245 task that permitted concurrent assessment of punishment, reward-seeking, and Pavlovian fear.

246 is known about the neural representation of punishment risk during reward-seeking behavior.

247 Our findings clarify punishment's adaptive basis, offer a case study of the e

248 king avoidance tendency to alcohol misuse in punishment-sensitive drinkers.

249 voidance and its link to problem drinking in punishment-sensitive nondependent drinkers.SIGNIFICANCE

250 Individuals with heightened punishment sensitivity (SP) trait are particularly vulne

251 avoidance as well as their relationship with punishment sensitivity and alcohol use remain unclear.

252 Punishment sensitivity correlated positively with ventra

253 ate-dependent reorientation of reward versus punishment sensitivity during inflammation.

254 red neural substrate for avoidance behavior, punishment sensitivity, and problem drinking.

255 ent a shared neural substrate for avoidance, punishment sensitivity, and problem drinking.

256 color effects were related to reward but not punishment sensitivity, with blue relative to red prefer

257 , DL1 cluster neurons convey a corresponding punishment signal [5], suggesting a cellular division of

258 n of labor to convey dopaminergic reward and punishment signals.

259 We found that punishment significantly benefitted performance during l

260 Response-contingent punishment significantly reduced methamphetamine taking

261 Individuals with heightened sensitivity to punishment (SP) are especially susceptible to problem dr

262 2010) presents one such method, the cost of punishment still reduces the common good.

263 y strong leadership, discipline, rewards and punishments, strong group identification, strict religio

264 psychological research on direct third-party punishment suggests that adults expect the leaders of so

265 (n = 48; 18 female) trained in a conditioned punishment task that permitted concurrent assessment of

266 lizing 'big gods' and prosocial supernatural punishment tend to appear only after the emergence of 'm

267 females were more sensitive to probabilistic punishment than males.

268 rol and SocAnh groups showed a larger FRN to punishment than reward, the PE group showed similar FRNs

269 ng by exerting more physical effort to avoid punishment than to gain a same-size reward.

270 an individuals exert more effort to minimize punishment than to maximize reward (loss aversion).

271 mPFC neurons are more selective to punishments than rewards when controlled.

272 emerging that suggest a neural framework for punishment that could one day have important legal and s

273 anges, which are enabled by a sensitivity to punishment that reduces perseverative errors.

274 player, a leader, ensures via inspection and punishment that the other player, a subordinate, produce

275 complex normative behaviours (prosociality, punishment) that require integration of social contextua

276 sions of the game with low-cost, high-impact punishment the influence both endures for more rounds an

277 We find that without punishment the likelihood of reaching the contribution t

278 ificance and were not paired with rewards or punishments, the majority of neurons that responded to t

279 sistent with a reduced tendency to engage in punishment; this was associated with decreased grey matt

280 bit choices that were more affected by those punishments, thus formalizing our predictions as paramet

281 Introducing costly punishment to diversity disfavors defection but favors c

282 Both mechanisms-punishment to force blind decisions and preferential int

283 nate feeding behaviors and act as rewards or punishments to entrain other cues.

284 learning paradigm with compound rewards and punishments to test the prediction that losartan augment

285 Third-party punishment (TPP), in which unaffected observers punish s

286 Also, this first demonstration of punishment-uncertainty signals in the brain suggests tha

287 Punishment undergirds large-scale cooperation and helps

288 Punishment was associated with altered plasticity at vmP

289 ic inhibition showed that this resistance to punishment was due in part to RMTg activity at the preci

290 e more likely than controls to respond as if punishment was likely when the cone was placed near to t

291 d dog personality, and when use of "negative punishment" was reported.

292 s suggested that compensation, as opposed to punishment, was related to Theory of Mind.

293 panied by varying probabilities of footshock punishment, we recently showed that females are more ris

294 hip, reciprocity, reputation, signaling, and punishment; we discuss key culture-gene coevolutionary h

295 ehaviorally attractive, and those leading to punishments were more aversive.

296 fort to gain reward but less effort to avoid punishment when compared with healthy age-matched contro

297 nintentionally, and we observed no effect of punishment when participants learned intentionally.

298 We observed a similar resistance to punishment when the RMTg was selectively inhibited immed

299 with a numerically larger FRN to reward than punishment (with similar results on these trials also fo

300 le for the vmPFC in regulating EtOH-SA after punishment, with implications for understanding the neur